Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0063142553 = product of:
  0.031571276 = sum of:
    0.031571276 = weight(_text_:7 in 4080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031571276 = score(doc=4080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17251469 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.18300632 = fieldWeight in 4080, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4080)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

7. 1.2011 16:54:53

0.0056444295 = product of:
  0.028222147 = sum of:
    0.028222147 = weight(_text_:22 in 2249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028222147 = score(doc=2249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18236019 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2249, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2249)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2008 18:05:16

0.0031571276 = product of:
  0.015785638 = sum of:
    0.015785638 = weight(_text_:7 in 1717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015785638 = score(doc=1717,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17251469 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.09150316 = fieldWeight in 1717, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1717)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

This book is evidence that Henderson and Tallman were meticulous in following their established protocols and especially in their record keeping while conducting their research. There are, however, a few issues in the study's framework and methodology that are worth noting. First, although the research was conducted in two different countries - the United Slates and Australia - it is not clear from the writing if the librarian-pupil pairs of each country hailed from the same schools (making the population opportunistic) or if the sampling was indeed more randomly selected. Readers do know, though, that the librarians were free to select the students they tutored from within their respective schools. Thus, there appears to he no randomness. Second, "[t]he data collection tools and questionnaires were grounded in a [single] pilot study with a [single] teacher-Iibrarian" (p. 7). Neither the procedures used nor the data collected from the pilot study are presented to establish its reliability and validity. Therefore, readers are left with only limited confidence in the study's instrumentation. Further, it is obvious from the reading, and admitted by the researchers, that the recording equipment in open view of the study's subjects skewed the data. That is, one of the librarians tinder study confessed that were it not for the cameras, she would have completely deserted one of her lessons when encountering what she perceived to be overwhelming obstacles: a classic example of the Hawthorne Effect in research. Yet. despite these issues, researchers Henderson and Tallman make a respectable ease in this book for the validity of both mental models and stimulated recall. The mental models developed during the prelesson interviews seem remarkably accurate when observing the school librarians during the lessons. Additionally, while the librarians were able to adapt their lessons based on situations, they generally did so within their mental models of what constitutes good teachers and good teaching.

0.0025257024 = product of:
  0.0126285115 = sum of:
    0.0126285115 = weight(_text_:7 in 68) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0126285115 = score(doc=68,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17251469 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.07320253 = fieldWeight in 68, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=68)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

1. historisch (die Gegenwart aus der Vergangheit heraus verstehen) 2. konstruktivistisch (Individuen konstruieren unter dem Einfluss ihres sozialen Kontexts das Verständnis ihrer Welten) 3. diskursanalytisch (Sprache konstituiert die Konstruktion der Identität und die Ausbildung von Bedeutungen) 4. philosophisch-analytisch (rigorose Analyse von Begriffen und Thesen) 5. kritische Theorie (Analyse versteckter Macht- und Herrschaftsmuster) 6. ethnographisch (Verständnis von Menschen durch Hineinversetzen in deren Kulturen) 7. sozialkognitiv (sowohl das Denken des Individuums als auch dessen sozialer bzw. fachlicher Umraum beeinflussen die Informationsnutzung) 8. kognitiv (Fokus auf das Denken der Individuen im Zusammenhang mit Suche, Auffindung und Nutzung von Information) 9. bibliometrisch (statistische Eigenschaften von Information) 10. physikalisch (Signalübertragung, Informationstheorie) 11. technisch (Informationsbedürfnisse durch immer bessere Systeme und Dienste erfüllen) 12. benutzerorientierte Gestaltung ("usability", Mensch-Maschine-Interaktion) 13. evolutionär (Anwendung von Ergebnissen von Biologie und Evolutionspsychologie auf informationsbezogene Phänomene). Bates Beitrag ist, wie stets, wohldurchdacht, didaktisch gut aufbereitet und in klarer Sprache abgefasst, sodass man ihn mit Freude und Gewinn liest. Zu letzterem trägt auch noch die umfangreiche Liste von Literaturangaben bei, mit der sich insbesondere die 13 genannten Metatheorien optimal weiterverfolgen lassen. . . .