Search results

The purpose of this article is to discuss the collaborative learning outcomes-based approach taken by a librarian and disciplinary faculty members to improve information literacy (IL) curriculum within disciplinary courses. To this end, the team aimed to award badges to certify IL skills.

This article considers relevant literature on competency-based curriculum, technological innovation in higher education, collaboration between library and disciplinary faculty and badges. This literature is used to frame the approach to plan a successful and sustainable project to embed IL in disciplinary curriculum using digital badges. The approach includes mapping learning outcomes and engaging in instructional design tasks – including planning for content delivery and student assessment.

An approach to technological innovation for instructional projects based on the principles of pedagogical design can result in improvements to IL pedagogy and collaboration between librarians and disciplinary faculty, whether or not a technological implementation is successful.

Librarians and disciplinary faculty can take a pedagogical and learning outcomes-based approach to embedding IL into disciplinary curricula. Further, despite administrative push for technological innovation, projects can succeed when focused on improvements to pedagogy rather than solely on the implementation of new technologies.

Planning for and implementing badges for IL curriculum is in an incipient phase in higher education. This paper uniquely addresses a collaborative approach to be used by librarians to plan and implement embedded library instruction in disciplinary courses, with or without the use of badging technology.

This chapter reports on a longitudinal quasi-experimental field study within an organizational design of a global consumer products manufacturer moving toward high-performance work systems (HPWSs) in North America by integrating business centers and self-directed work teams (SDWTs) coupled with 13 other action-levers within an integrated and bundled high-performance organizations (HPOs) re-design. The results of this organizational design effort are assessed using different types and levels of organizational outcomes (hard record data, behavioral, and attitudinal measures) along a 5-year temporal dimension punctuated by multiple time periods (baseline, during, and after). The organization, which was “built to change” (Lawler & Worley, 2006), in this research had already highly superior or “exemplar” (Collins, 2001) levels of organizational performance. Consequently, the real research question becomes: “What effect does state of the art organizational design and development have on an exemplar organization?” The study also calls into question the field's ability to truly assess exemplar organizations with existing measures of organizational change and development.

The purpose of this paper is to explore, how organization theoretically diverse research on OCR is actually grounded, since insights into the organization theoretical foundations of OCR are completely lacking.

A selection of 85 articles on organizational change was made, published in top tier journals in 2010. The authors conducted a reference analysis based on 18 prominent organization theories and their main contributing authors.

The findings show firstly a very strong theoretical selectivity, focusing on cognitive, learning, and neo-institutional theories. Other theories are almost fully neglected. Secondly, this analysis suggests that current OCR struggles hard with transforming the cognitive frames of topical OT into fruitful accesses to the own object. The resulting theory application appears as a dissatisfying escape strategy, performed to cover theoretical antagonisms and to avoid a deeper confrontation with the underlying assumptions of OCR.

The authors are fully aware that the depth of their analysis is worth broadening. A more comparable scope in the amount of the theories, journals, articles, and of the covered time span would help to substantiate their results.

Pragmatic change approaches rely strongly on organizational change research. If OCR itself is not topical in terms of using available theoretical knowledge, pragmatic approaches fail to stand on solid ground. The paper therefore provides a background for the link between failing empirical change projects and the usage of available scientific knowledge.

An analysis of the organization theoretical topicality of organizational change research is completely missing. The paper therefore not only contributes to the discovery of a blind spot in organizational studies, it possibly helps to explore the reasons for the high percentage of failing change projects.

The purpose of this paper is to study the regions of parameter space of engineering design in which performance is sensitive to design parameters. Some of these parameters (for example, the dimensions and compositions of components) constitute the design, but others are intrinsic properties of materials or Nature. The paper is concerned with narrow regions of parameter space, “cliffs”, in which performance (some measure of the final state of a system, such as ignition or nonignition of a flammable gas, or failure or nonfailure of a ductile material subject to tension) is a sensitive function of the parameters. In these regions, performance is also sensitive to uncertainties in the parameters. This is particularly important for intrinsically indeterminate systems, those whose performance is not predictable from measured initial conditions and is not reproducible.

We develop models of ignition of a flammable mixture and of failure in plastic flow under tension. We identify and quantify cliffs in performance as functions of the design parameters. These cliffs are characterized by large partial derivatives of performance parameters with respect to the design parameters and with respect to the uncertainties in the model. We calculate and quantify the consequences of small random variations in the parameters of indeterminate systems.

We find two qualitatively different classes of performance cliffs. In one class, performance is a sensitive function of the parameters in a narrow range that separates wider ranges in which it is insensitive. In the other class, the final state is not defined for parameter values outside some range, and performance is a sensitive function of the parameters as they approach their limiting values. We find that sensitivity of performance to control (design) parameters implies that it is also sensitive to other parameters, some of which may not be known, and to uncertainties of the initial state that are not under the control of the designer. Near or on a cliff performance is degraded. It is also less predictable and less reproducible.

Frequently, design optimization or cost minimization leads to choices of engineering design parameters near cliffs. The sensitivity of performance to uncertainty that we find in those regimes implies that caution and extensive empirical experience are required to assure reliable functioning. Because cliffs are defined as behavior on the threshold of failure, this is a reflection of the trade-off between optimization and margin of safety, and implies the importance of ensuring that margins and uncertainties are quantified. The implications extend far beyond the model systems we consider to engineering systems in general.

Many of these considerations have been part of the informal culture of engineering design, but they were not formalized until the methodology of “Quantification of Margins and Uncertainty” was developed in recent years. Although this methodology has been widely used and discussed, it has only been published in a small number of reports (cited here), and never in a journal article or book. This paper may be its first formal publication, and also its first quantitative application to and illustration with explicit model problems.