Search results

This paper aims to present recently published resources on library instruction and information literacy providing an introductory overview and a selected annotated bibliography of publications covering all library types.

This paper introduces and annotates English-language periodical articles, monographs, dissertations, reports and other materials on library instruction and information literacy published in 2018.

The paper provides a brief description of all 422 sources, and highlights sources that contain unique or significant scholarly contributions.

The information may be used by librarians and anyone interested as a quick reference to literature on library instruction and information literacy.

This paper presents recently published resources on library instruction and information literacy, providing an introductory overview and a selected annotated bibliography of publications covering various library types, study populations and research contexts.

This paper introduces and annotates English-language periodical articles, monographs, dissertations, reports and other materials on library instruction and information literacy published in 2020.

The paper provides a brief description of all 440 sources and highlights sources that contain unique or significant scholarly contributions.

The information may be used by librarians, researchers and anyone interested in a quick and comprehensive reference to literature on library instruction and information literacy.

This paper aims to present recently published resources on library instruction and information literacy, providing an introductory overview and a selected annotated bibliography of publications covering various library types, study populations and research contexts.

This paper introduces and annotates English-language periodical articles, monographs, dissertations, reports and other materials on library instruction and information literacy published in 2019.

The paper provides a brief description of all 370 sources and highlights sources that contain unique or significant scholarly contributions.

The information may be used by librarians, researchers and anyone interested as a quick and comprehensive reference to literature on library instruction and information literacy.

Despite the general recommendation of using a combination of multiple criteria for research assessment and faculty promotion decisions, the raise of quantitative indicators is generating an emerging trend in Business Schools to use single journal impact factors (IFs) as key (unique) drivers for those relevant school decisions. This paper aims to investigate the effects of using single Web of Science (WoS)-based journal impact metrics when assessing research from two related disciplines: Business and Economics, and its potential impact for the strategic sustainability of a Business School.

This study collected impact indicators data for Business and Economics journals from the Clarivate Web of Science database. We concentrated on the IF indicators, the Eigenfactor and the article influence score (AIS). This study examined the correlations between these indicators and then ranked disciplines and journals using these different impact metrics.

Consistent with previous findings, this study finds positive correlations among these metrics. Then this study ranks the disciplines and journals using each impact metric, finding relevant and substantial differences, depending on the metric used. It is found that using AIS instead of the IF raises the relative ranking of Economics, while Business remains basically with the same rank.

This study contributes to the research assessment literature by adding substantial evidence that given the sensitivity of journal rankings to particular indicators, the selection of a single impact metric for assessing research and hiring/promotion and tenure decisions is risky and too simplistic. This research shows that biases may be larger when assessment involves researchers from related disciplines – like Business and Economics – but with different research foundations and traditions.

Consistent with the literature, given the sensibility of journal rankings to particular indicators, the selection of a single impact metric for assessing research, assigning research funds and hiring/promotion and tenure decisions is risky and simplistic. However, this research shows that risks and biases may be larger when assessment involves researchers from related disciplines – like Business and Economics – but with different research foundations and trajectories. The use of multiple criteria is advised for such purposes.

This is an applied work using real data from WoS that addresses a practical case of comparing the use of different journal IFs to rank-related disciplines like Business and Economics, with important implications for faculty tenure and promotion committees and for research funds granting institutions and decision-makers.

The purpose of this research is to understand reflective journalling in a first year Public Health practice unit.

This research uses pure phenomenography to interpret students’ descriptions of reflective journalling. Data were collected from 32 students enrolled in PUB215 Public Health Practice in the School of Public Health, Queensland University of Technology. Participants completed a brief open‐ended questionnaire to evaluate the first assessment item in this unit, a reflective journal. Questionnaire responses were analysed through Dahlgren and Fallsberg's seven phases of data analysis.

The reflective journal required students to reflect on lecture content from five of seven guest speakers. Participants’ responses were categorised into four conceptions: engagement in learning, depth of knowledge, understanding the process and doing the task. Participants describe reflective journalling as a conduit to think critically about the content of the guest speakers’ presentations. Other participants think journalling is a vehicle to think deeply about their potential career pathways. Some define journalling as a pragmatic operation where practical issues are difficult to navigate. The reflective journal successfully: engaged students’ learning, increased students’ depth of knowledge and deepened students’ understanding of the journalling process.

This research gives an insight into how first year public health students understand reflective journalling, supports educators in reflective journalling assessments and confirms a reflective journal assessment can move student reflection towards higher order thinking about practice.

This study aims to establish the use of active scholar assessment (ASA) in the field of education leadership as a new methodology in ranking administration and leadership journals. The secondary purpose of this study is to respond to the paucity of research on journal ranking in educational administration and leadership.

This empirical study uses on‐line survey research methods with analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical analysis.

The main findings of this study are: ASA minimizes noted limitations in peer assessment studies; publishing rates and years of service do not significantly influence quality assessment bias; ASA provides a comprehensive and fair assessment of journals; and ASA responds to established criteria as a new, independent system for journal ranking. This study also provides current rankings of educational administration and leadership journals.

This study points to the importance of continued research using ASA in journal assessment in education and other social sciences.

This study provides a new methodology in assessing journal quality, awareness, and importance to the field for journals in educational administration and leadership.

I begin by examining some ways in which organisations have attempted to improve their recruitment and selection procedures to minimise bias and unfair discrimination, and focus on the assessment centre as a potentially useful technique in this respect, especially for managerial selection. I go on to examine the assessment centre in more detail, including its origins, construction and uses, before discussing the strong evidence for its validity as a selection and assessment procedure. I then describe some recent British innovations in assessment centre design and practice, especially in its use for management and organisation development purposes, before discussing some of my own recent research, in collaboration with Ivan Robertson and Usha Rout, on participants' attitudes towards the use of assessment centres for selection and development purposes, including gender differences in attitudes.

Student learning outcomes assessment, when done right, is an ongoing and systematic process. Faculty and staff for leadership education programs often struggle to develop a comprehensive approach to assess the effectiveness of their programs, especially when those programs are offered through multiple modes of instruction. One department at a Midwestern public university has developed a thorough, five-stage process which any leadership education program can follow, regardless of size or method of delivery. This department considers three modes of instruction, including face-to-face on a traditional American campus, asynchronous online, and face-to-face at foreign universities via international partnerships. This manuscript describes the comprehensive process and offers readers considerations for implementation at their own institution.

Assessment centres as a total system, involving theoretical, practical and technical aspects, are focused on. Recent research findings on assessment centres, their processes and practices, are discussed and the implications for practice are examined.