Shifting the Perspective of the Research Librarian: A CoResearch Paradigm

This article proposes the coresearch engagement model (CoRE), which addresses how the academic research librarian can become a coresearch partner with any patron. The CoRE model is an interpersonal process and is founded upon the concepts of mutual respect, collaboration, reciprocity, and empowerment. Grounded in Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory, Malcolm Knowles’ andragogical model, and guidelines from the Reference and User Services Association, CoRE has the potential to result in engagement for the librarian and patron. The CoRE model can be utilized in many ways including self-awareness and development for those who need and want to expand their abilities as a research librarian. It provides a theoretical framework and a knowledge base, in addition to giving a context for further development by expanding, comparing the related theories for further research, and implementing various applications suggested by this article.     

Sustainability Strategies in the Forestry–Wood Chain Driven by Market Demands on Books and Other Products

This paper focuses on sustainability strategies for the Forestry–Wood chain (FWC) driven by market demands on books and other products. The main objective is to draft and suggest a process for market driven pro-active sustainability strategies for the FWC, based on a SWOT-analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats). Further to highlight the possible strategic implications and critical areas for actors upstream in the FWC, in the context of uncertain external future scenarios. Higher demands on product differentiation were found throughout the FWC, where also collaboration and stakeholder interaction was found important to improve sustainability. The work broadens the “traditional” perspectives on FWC sustainability to encompass also interacting value chains such as book production and publishing, to get a more holistic view.     

Validation of the Instructional Materials Motivation Survey (IMMS) in a self‐directed instructional setting aimed at working with technology

The ARCS Model of Motivational Design has been used myriad times to design motivational instructions that focus on attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction in order to motivate students. The Instructional Materials Motivation Survey (IMMS) is a 36‐item situational measure of people's reactions to instructional materials in the light of the ARCS model. Although the IMMS has been used often, both as a pretest and a posttest tool serving as either a motivational needs assessment prior to instruction or a measure of people's reactions to instructional materials afterward, the IMMS so far has not been validated extensively, taking statistical and theoretical aspects of the survey into account. This paper describes such an extensive validation study, for which the IMMS was used in a self‐directed instructional setting aimed at working with technology (a cellular telephone). Results of structural equation modeling show that the IMMS can be reduced to 12 items. This Reduced Instructional Materials Motivation Survey IMMS (RIMMS) is preferred over the original IMMS. The parsimonious RIMMS measures the four constructs attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction of the ARCS model well, and reflects its conditional nature.     

The Practicality of Principled Practical Knowledge: A Response to Janssen,Westbroek, and Doyle

“Practicality Studies” (Janssen, Westbroek, & Doyle, 2015/this issue) starts with a critical commentary on “Principled Practical Knowledge: Not a Bridge but a Ladder” (Bereiter, 2014) but consists in the main of an essay on what the authors consider to be really practical knowledge for teachers. The gist of their criticism is that “Bereiter and with him a large part of the design research community in the learning sciences underestimate the magnitude of … usability issues and in fact believe that much of the task of usability is already solved by design research in the learning sciences” (p. 177). The authors argue persuasively for giving “practicality studies” a place in learning sciences research, but their subtitle—“How to Move From What Works in Principle to What Works in Practice”—claims too much and makes an invidious distinction.