Undergraduates May Prefer to Learn about the Library Informally
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Review of: Murphy, J. A. (2014). Library learning: Undergraduate students’ informal, self-directed, and information sharing strategies. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 9(1), 1-20. https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/index Abstract Objective – To determine undergraduate student approaches to learning about research and to seeking assistance with resources and services offered by the library. Design – Three face-to-face focus groups received the same 12 questions to discuss over 90 minutes. Setting – Academic library in Saskatchewan, Canada. Subjects – A total of 14 undergraduate students majoring in a social science or humanities subject area. Of these, four subjects were in their second year of undergraduate study, four in their third year, and six in their fourth year. Subjects participated in focus groups with other students in their year of study. The researcher recruited subjects through printed advertisements distributed in areas frequented by social science and humanities students. 12 female students and 2 male students participated. 13 participants had attended a library instruction session in the past. Subjects were offered pizza, but were not otherwise incentivized to participate. Methods – The researcher and an assistant conducted three focus groups with undergraduate students, eliciting qualitative comments later transcribed and coded manually for analysis. Requirements for participation included being engaged in an undergraduate major in the social sciences or humanities, and previous experience using the library. Subjects answered open-ended questions about their studies, research activities, use of the library for a variety of tasks, and help seeking preferences. Main Results – Regardless of year of study, focus group participants reported informal approaches to learning about and conducting research. All participants were confident about using the library’s online resources, and preferred learning about library resources through self-directed practice and trial and error. Participants revealed that learning about the library informally was preferable to library instruction. Most participants indicated they had sought help from the library at one time or another. Participants prized sharing information with classmates, especially through collaboration and social networks, and they valued the expertise of professors, peers, friends, and family when doing research. Three factors may influence their choice to consult and exchange information with other trusted advisers outside of the library: convenience, familiarity, and knowledge. Conclusion – Findings from this study align with previous findings about student approaches to seeking research assistance. The author reveals that assistance from the library, including library instruction, is less important to focus group participants than the research strategies they have developed informally, including trial and error and information sharing within one’s personal network. The author observes that the informal learning strategies implemented by undergraduates in this study mirror the strategies of adult learners, especially in the workplace. The author suggests that intentional, course integrated library instruction in the early years of undergraduate education would strengthen students’ preferred self-directed learning about research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,067 | 0,023 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».