Search results

This paper aims to analyze the relationship among measures of resource and service usage and other features of academic libraries in the USA and Canada.

Through the use of a self‐organizing map, academic library data were clustered and visualized. Analysis of the library data was conducted through the computation of a “library performance metric” that was applied to the resulting map.

Two areas of high‐performing academic libraries emerged on the map. One area included libraries with large numbers of resources, while another area included libraries that had low resources but gave greater numbers of presentations to groups, offered greater numbers of public service hours, and had greater numbers of staffed service points.

The metrics chosen as a measure of library performance offer only a partial picture of how libraries are being used. Future research might involve the use of a self‐organizing map to cluster library data within certain parameters and the identification of high‐performing libraries within these clusters.

This study suggests that libraries can improve their performance not only by acquiring greater resources but also by putting greater emphasis on the services that they provide to their users.

This paper demonstrates how a self‐organizing map can be used in the analysis of large data sets to facilitate library comparisons.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss an academic library's need to engage all available resources to provide the services required by the changing uses, formats, and production of information.

The paper uses the @One service environment as a case study. The service and staffing model employed a sample of 20 students and professionals who work at the @One desk. Attitudes toward the @One space were assessed through one‐on‐one interviews using two different interview protocols. Participants were asked open‐ended questions that allowed them to talk at length in response.

It is found that the University of Nevada, Reno's Mathewson‐IGT Knowledge Center has implemented a highly interactive service environment in support of production‐intensive information technologies. Professionals from numerous information disciplines participate in staffing the department, but student staff constitute the core of service delivery.

This paper provides information on an interactive staffing model in a US university.

The aim of this study is to explore the information needs and behaviors of practicing theatre artists. Psychological research into creativity provides a framework for understanding both theatre artists' information‐seeking behavior and the role of information seeking and gathering in the creative process.

The exploratory study presents findings from an online questionnaire of 73 practicing theatre artists and qualitative data gathered from eight interviews with theatre professionals.

The study reveals that theatre artists seek information for six primary purposes: understanding a work's historical, cultural, and critical background; finding sources of inspiration; learning about contemporary or historical theatre productions, artists, and events; learning technical or process information; finding performance materials; and furthering career goals. Theatre artists view the information search process as being essential to their creative activities, and their first‐hand accounts of their artistic experiences illuminate the critical role that information seeking and gathering play in the creative process.

Some theatre professions, such as lighting or sound design, were represented in the questionnaire but were not represented in the interviews.

The study has practical implications for the delivery of library and internet theatre art collections and information services.

Few studies have examined the information‐seeking behavior of practicing theatre artists. The paper demonstrates that studies of artists can be used to understand the role of information seeking and gathering in the creative processes of people working in various subject domains.

Purpose – This chapter explores the work of one expert seventh-grade science teacher, Ann, as she used the gradual release of responsibility (GRR) to develop students’ knowledge and use of science language and conceptual knowledge. Ann’s use of scaffolds such as thoughtful definition, classroom discussion, and writing frameworks is explored, as well as her methods of incorporating language into science inquiry, and the evidence she gathered as proof of learning. Her instructional decision-making and specific instructional actions are analyzed to describe the ways she gradually guided students from heavily scaffolded learning opportunities, through guided practice with extensive modeling, and ultimately to independent and accurate use of science language and conceptual knowledge in spoken and written discourse.

Design/methodology/approach – In a researcher/teacher partnership modeled on the practice embedded educational research (PEER) framework (Snow, 2015) the author worked with Ann over four school years, collecting data that included interviews, Ann’s teaching journal, student artifacts, and vocabulary pre/post-assessments. The initial task of the partnership was review of science standards and curricular documents and analysis of disciplinary language in seventh-grade science in order to construct a classroom science vocabulary assessment that incorporated a scaffolded format to build incremental knowledge of science words. Results of 126 students’ pre/post scores on the vocabulary assessment were analyzed using quantitative methods, and interviews and the teaching journal were analyzed using qualitative techniques. Student artifacts support and triangulate the quantitative and qualitative analyses.

Findings – Analysis of students’ pre/post-scores on the vocabulary assessment supported the incremental nature of vocabulary learning and the value of a scaffolded assessment. Improvement in ability to choose a one-word definition and choose a sentence-length definition had significant and positive effect on students’ ability to write a sentence using a focus science word correctly to demonstrate science conceptual knowledge. Female students performed just as well as male students: a finding that differs from other vocabulary intervention research. Additionally, Ann’s use of scaffolded, collaborative methods during classroom discussion and writing led to improved student knowledge of science language and the concepts it labels, as evident in students’ responses during discussion and their writing in science inquiry reports and science journals.

Research limitations – These data were collected from students in one science teacher’s classroom, limiting generalization. However, the expertise of this teacher renders her judgments useful to other teachers and teacher trainers, despite the limited context of this research.

Practical implications – Science knowledge is enhanced when language and science inquiry coexist, but the language of science often presents a barrier to learning science, and there are significant student achievement gaps in science learning across race, ethnicity, and gender. Researchers have described ways to make explicit connections between science language, concepts, and knowledge, transcending the gaps and leveling the playing field for all students. Analysis of Ann’s teaching practice, drawn from four years of teacher and student data, provides specific and practical ways of doing this in a real science classroom. Scaffolding, modeling, and co-construction of learning are key.

Originality/value of paper – This chapter details the methods one expert teacher used to make her own learning the object of inquiry, simultaneously developing the insights and the strategies she needed to mentor students. It describes how Ann infused the GRR into planning and instruction to create learning experiences that insured student success, even if only at incremental levels. Ann’s methods can thus become a model for other teachers who wish to enhance their students’ learning of science language and concepts through infusion of literacy activity.

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the conceptual and historical genesis of the gradual release of responsibility (GRR) model (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983) which has become one of the most commonly used instructional frameworks for research and professional development in the field of reading and literacy.

Design/Methodology/Approach – This chapter uses a narrative, historical approach to describe the emergence of the model in the work taking place in the late 1970s and early 1980s in reading research and educational theory, particularly at the Center for the Study of Reading at the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana as carried out by David Pearson, Meg Gallagher, and their colleagues.

Findings – The GRR Model began, in part, in response to the startling findings of Dolores Durkin’s (1978/1979) study of reading comprehension instruction in classrooms which found that little instruction was occurring even while students were completing numerous assignments and question-response activities. Pearson and Gallagher were among those researchers who took seriously the task of developing an instructional model and approach for comprehension strategy instruction that included explicit instruction. They recognized a need for teachers to be responsible for leading and scaffolding instruction, even as they supported learners in moving toward independent application of strategies and independence in reading. Based in the current research in the reading field and the rediscovery of the work of Vygotsky (1978) and the descriptions of scaffolding as coined by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976), Pearson and Gallagher developed the model of gradual release. Over time, the model has been adapted by many literacy scholars, applied to curriculum planning, used with teachers for professional development, reprinted numerous times, and with the advent of the Internet, proliferated even further as teachers and educators share their own versions of the model. This chapter introduces readers to the original model and multiple additional representations/iterations of the model that emerged over the past few decades. This chapter also attends to important nuances in the model and to some misconceptions of the instructional model.

Research Limitations/Implications – Despite the popularity of the original GRR model developed by Pearson and Gallagher and the many adaptations of the model by many collaborators and colleagues in literacy – and even beyond – there have been very few publications that have explored the historical and conceptual origins of the model and its staying power.

Practical Implications – This chapter will speak to researchers, teachers, and other educators who use the GRR model to help guide thinking about instruction in reading, writing, and other content areas with children, youth, pre-service teachers, and in-service teachers. This chapter provides a thoughtful discussion of multiple representations of the gradual release process and the nuances of the model in ways that will help to dispel misuse of the model while recognizing its long-standing and sound foundation on established socio-cognitive principles and instructional theories such as those espoused by Jerome Bruner, Lev Vygotsky, Anne Brown, and others.

Originality/Value of Paper – This chapter makes an original contribution to the field in explaining the historical development and theoretical origins of the GRR model by Pearson and Gallagher (1983) and in presenting multiple iterations of the model developed by Pearson and his colleagues in the field.

Even as sites for higher education work to transform curricula and strive for greater diversity among students and faculties, little is done to create safe, inviting environments for people to openly discuss the contradictions and challenges in teaching about differences. The authors' purpose is to examine multiple and intersecting systems of power and privilege that deny marginalized voices a forum to challenge conventional hegemonic discourses of differences and stereotypical representations within learning. The recognition of contradictory subjective locations occupied by all the participants in the classroom, including the teacher, is accounted for in critical feminist pedagogies that challenge who speaks, who listens and why. As such, bridging the gaps, cracks, holes or crevices from which commonalities and differences emerge is part of the process required in understanding the differences.

This paper provides suggestions for college faculty who want to critically challenge their students to explore their beliefs about persons deemed “different” in society, and examine the nature of stereotypical perceptions embedded in the representations of the “other”.

The authors maintain that faculty must provide opportunities for discussion while creating a safe environment free of judgment during this time of exploration and discovery for all participants.

Multiple strategies for exposing college students/teacher candidates to differing views on cultural perceptions and misconceptions are provided. The authors challenge college faculty to not only expose students to an array of views but also encourage students to voice their own views by interrogating the inherent systemic power of inequity in society.

Purpose – This chapter presents an analysis of a researcher-led follow-up activity during an early childhood reading lesson that was aligned with a gradual release of responsibility (GRR) model. Particularly, the authors seek to understand how students used their language(s) in this lesson, how they described particular linguistic decisions, and how language could be further conceptualized in such events.

Design/Methodology/Approach – The authors develop a telling case (Mitchell, 1984) from the guided instruction portion of a lesson to make salient theoretical connections between metacognitive strategies taught in early literacy and metalinguistic knowledge theorized from the field of linguistic anthropology. The lesson was video recorded for interactional analysis. The video recording was also used to stimulate recall and allow students to reflect on their own language use.

Findings –Through the telling case, the authors use language socialization as a lens to understand the way students represent story retell with physical objects. Though some students do not use the school-based conventionalized form of retelling, they do engage in retelling by using a variety of other forms. The authors highlight through the case that the metacognitive strategy of story retell is distinct from the abstract linear, left-to-right representation of sequencing of events.

Research Limitations/Implications – This study suggests that further attention is needed to theorize the relationship between reading strategies and forms of representation in multilingual preschool contexts. In particular, the very notions of literacy and language need to be nuanced through conversations among multiple disciplines.

Practical Implications – Practitioners are encouraged to attend to the differences between metacognitive strategies that are useful for reading comprehension and the expected styles of representation. Teachers can consider leveraging the communicative repertoires of emergent bilingual students as they accomplish early literacy activities, thereby, potentially offering further scaffolds for learning reading strategies.

Originality/Value of Paper – This chapter brings nuance to the GRR model by demonstrating that there is a difference between the GRR of metacognitive strategies in reading instruction and the way they are represented through diverse semiotic repertoires.

THE Newcastle school, like most others, was established after the second world war to provide full‐time education in librarianship as an alternative to the part‐time system which until 1946 was the only one available to the majority of librarians. At first most of the students were returning servicemen whose library careers had been interrupted by the war and they were followed by students direct from libraries, universities and schools. From a handful of students and one full‐time member of staff in the first year the school has grown steadily until there were 53 students and five staff during the session 1962–3 which was the last course held for the Registration Examination.