Search results

The purpose of this paper is to identify how different factors of antecedents and processes affect the outcomes of an internship, measured in terms of competency development.

The authors used an internship questionnaire designed for the University of Tartu in Estonia. Responses were obtained from 178 students across different disciplines – humanities and the arts, social sciences, natural sciences and medicine – who had recently taken an internship. Based on current academic literature, the authors create a three-level model: antecedents-processes-outcomes. The antecedents and processes were both differentiated into three factors and tested with a structural equation model.

The model demonstrates that there are different antecedents that have an effect on internship outcomes, but these only work through internship processes. For example, the objective of the internship and clarity of instructions will only have a positive effect if there is relevant support from the supervisor at the employing company and if the student can use the knowledge and skills gained at university.

The study is based on survey data filled in by students, i.e. based on self-perception. Based on the results of the study, the authors claim that an active role and initiative-taking by students in finding suitable internships should be further encouraged.

Whilst previous studies have used a two-level model of internship (or a three-level model for students satisfaction as an outcome) the authors create and test a three-level model measuring competency development as the outcome of an internship.

Some employers contend that the college graduates they hire should have stronger communication and critical thinking skills upon arrival from their various college/university programs in which they majored. As higher education continues its efforts to meet the demands for employers, the authors contend that the benefits of participation in debate exercises can be incorporated into various courses as a teaching tool to increase facility with these soft skills. A practical application of debate in a specific organizational leadership course is presented, along with highlights of the student participants’ reflections upon the experience, and the initial signs of positive impact on these skills. Suggestions of future application of debate into curricula are also shared.

It's hard to envision a system more global and more integrated than research. Many stakeholders affect and are affected by changes in the research ecosystem; the ecosystem differs in significant ways across the globe and between researchers, institutions and fields of study; and there are many questions that exclusive action can't address. There are also broad ecosystem-level questions that need answering. For these reasons alone, global approaches to reform are needed.

The first step in this exploration isn't to start looking for “solutions”, but to develop a better understanding of how our needs and interests overlap. By identifying the broad contours of common ground in this conversation, we can build the guardrails and mileposts for our collaborative efforts and then allow the finer-grained details of community-developed plans more flexibility and guidance to evolve over time.

What are these overlapping interests? First, the people in this community share a common motive – idealism – to make research better able to serve the public good. We also share a common desire to unleash the power of open to improve research and accelerate discovery; we are all willing to fix issues now instead of waiting for market forces or government intervention to do this for us; and we want to ensure that everyone everywhere has equitable access to knowledge.

There is also very broad agreement in this community about which specific problems in scholarly communication need to be fixed and why, and well as many overlapping beliefs in this community. OSI participants have concluded that four such beliefs best define our common ground: (1) research and society will benefit from open done right; (2) successful solutions will require broad collaboration; (3) connected issues need to be addressed, and (4) open isn't a single outcome, but a spectrum.

OSI has been observing and debating the activity in scholarly communication since late 2014 with regard to understanding possible global approaches and solutions for improving the future of open research. While the COVID-19 pandemic has made the importance of open science abundantly clear, the struggle to achieve this goal (not just for science but for all research) has been mired in a lack of clarity and urgency for over 20 years now, mostly stalling on the tension between wanting more openness but lacking realistic solutions for making this happen on a large scale with so many different stakeholders, needs and perspectives involved.

Underlying this tension is a fundamental difference in philosophy: whether the entire scholarly communication marketplace, driven by the needs and desires of researchers, should determine what kind of open it wants and needs; or whether this marketplace should be compelled to adopt open reform measures developed primarily by the scholarly communication system's main billpayers-funders and libraries. There is no widespread difference of opinion in the community whether open is worth pursuing. The debate is mostly over what specific open solutions are best, and at what pace open reforms should occur.

OSI has proposed a plan of action for working together to rebuild the future of scholarly communication on strong, common ground foundation. This plan – which we're referring to as Plan A – calls for joint action on studies, scholarly communication infrastructure improvement, and open outreach/education. Plan A also calls for working together with UNESCO to develop a unified global roadmap for the future of open, and for striving to ensure the community's work in this space is researcher-focused, collaborative, connected (addressing connected issues like peer review), diverse and flexible (no one-size-fits-all solutions), and beneficial to research. UNESCO's goal is to finish its roadmap proposal by early 2022.

For a full discussion of OSI's common ground recommendations, please see the Plan A website at http://plan-a.world.

This study investigated the effect of cooperative learning on the performance of female college students enrolled in “writing and research” courses at Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University (Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia). Cooperative learning (CL) activities were employed in place of traditional lectures and group activities. Two populations were compared, one with the CL methodology and one with traditional methodology. The results were assessed by final exam scores, final course grades, the number of students passing, pre and post-tests and a self-report survey. We found that this sample of Arab college students performed at a higher level in the CL classes than in the traditional classes. Findings suggest that CL is an effective method for teaching Arab college students.

Investment in graduate education is costly in various ways so completion success is a big concern for universities and stakeholders. Largely the graduate educational landscape moves along a commonly structured path from acceptance to graduation. Despite many having successfully attained the award, the research literacies that signal doctoral achievement remain obscure and scholars continue to struggle with developing clear and tangible measures for the competencies that represent attainment of the degree. Feedback gathered from faculty at a large research institution through a series of semi-structured interviews illustrated the challenge departments have to effectively communicate what it takes to get through graduate education. As a result students still have a difficult time understanding the complexity of graduate training. This study views graduate education from the lens of intellectual journeys, as opposed to the research lifecycle, as a way of uncovering distinct disciplinary discourse practices and offering libraries critical points to align services using this framework.

The methodology is highly flexible and adaptable to many contexts besides graduate education. This study takes a different approach from previous studies in its framing of discussions with academic faculty, using journey maps, to focus on the intellectual journeys of graduate students. Faculty from different disciplines participated in one-on-one, hour-long interviews. Discussions were audio recorded, transcribed, and then coded into NVivo. Iterative review on the data continued until themes emerged. The data gathered were used to compile a detailed map of the processes and requirements that make up graduate education. This approach to the data helped to identify what faculty perceive as the greatest struggles for graduate students and provide evidence of the key places within the intellectual journeys of graduate students.

This paper provides a discussion of graduate student personas revealed through intellectual journeys, assesses the issues students encounter, shares critical time points and key places within these intellectual journeys where significant development occur, and suggests how libraries can and should connect with graduate committee members to establish missing support structures. Practical suggestions for library support are given for the areas where students struggle most. These critical services can be aligned to key developmental phases that will not only positively impact the time to completion but also retention.

First, the methodology discussed is highly flexible and adaptable to many contexts besides graduate education. Second, librarians adopting this methodology can generate their own editable journey maps not only to offer the most critical services but these tools also double as visual communication and negotiation tools for graduate students and their mentors during graduate training. Third, previous research has suggested that the most instrumental factor for graduate students completing their degree was the concept of forward progress. Framing the graduate experience and orienting library graduate support through the lens of disciplinary intellectual journeys achieves an action-oriented approach that supplements and addresses structural inequities by providing consequential support at meaningful points in a student’s journey thus allowing students to make forward progress and ultimately lead to faster completion rates.

The undergraduate research experience program is a funding program offered by the Qatar National Research Fund. The purpose of the program is to provide hands-on research experience for undergraduate students in order to increase their capacity for future research activities. However, leading a team of unexperienced researchers can be challenging. Minimal literature exists of how to overcome these challenges and provide a positive learning experience for novice researchers. The purpose of this paper is to: 1) describe a ‘situated learning’ framework, and teaching methods and approaches that may be helpful for future researchers to actively engage students in the research learning process; 2) describe our own experiences with creating a professional community of research using a team approach; and, 3) offer some practical strategies for scaffolding students to gain research skills through working in close proximity to more experienced colleagues. Helpful situated learning strategies included active engagement of students throughout the project, setting meaningful activities, meeting regularly as a team, scaffolding student learning, setting both individual and group work, assigning specific roles, engaging students in dissemination activities, sharing responsibility, and fading control of project activities to the students as their competency increased. Using a structured mentoring strategy resulted in students being actively engaged in all stages of the project. This approach helped to overcome many challenges of working with novice researchers. It was also rewarding to observe the growth of young researchers through the experiences that they gained in working as members of a research community of practice.