MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1503791173 · doi:10.18438/b8pg7f

Too Few Articles in the Journal Literature on Instruction in Academic Libraries are Research-Based

2008· article· en· W1503791173 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kurt Blythe

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésComputer sciencePublicationLibrary scienceLibrary instructionInformation literacy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A review of: Crawford, Gregory A., and Jessica Feldt. “An Analysis of the Literature on Instruction in Academic Libraries.” Reference & User Services Quarterly 46.3 (Spr. 2007): 77-87. Objective – To discover which journals publish a preponderance of the literature on instruction in academic libraries, and to further learn what topics are discussed in the literature and what methods of inquiry are used to explore those topics. Design – Comparative analysis. Setting – The ERIC database. Subjects – Journal articles published between 1971 and 2002, found in the ERIC database via the descriptor ‘library instruction.’ Methods – Journal articles published between 1971 and 2002 were searched in the ERIC database using the term ‘library instruction,’ because the term has been used by ERIC since the inception of the database. Article characteristics such as year of publication, journal in which a given article was published, and types of articles were identified. After normalizing the identification of article types by comparing individual codifications of a random sample of articles from the results list, the researchers coded all of the articles according to the articles’ main topics. These article topics were then condensed into broader topics (e.g. articles coded initially as addressing the topics of instruction to “graduate students” or “high school students” were condensed under the heading “instruction of specific populations”). Those articles deemed to have a research component were further analyzed in terms of research methodology, scope, and use of statistics. The questions guiding the authors' study consisted of: In which journals are articles on instruction in academic libraries published? What are the topics of the articles that have been published? How has the literature of instruction in academic libraries changed over the years? What is the nature of research [authors' emphasis] articles on instruction in academic libraries? For research articles, what are the research methods used and what types of statistics are utilized? (77-78). Main results – The search found 791 articles appearing in 90 journals. However, only six journals were responsible for publishing 60% of the articles on the results list. Based on the categorization into topics or types, five article types – “general essays,” articles on “instruction for searching online catalogs and databases,” “articles on course- or assignment-related instruction,” “programmatic and management issues,” and “specific institution instruction” – accounted for 54% of the total articles; eleven other topics are represented in the remaining articles. Only 24.5% of the articles could be considered “research-based.” While nine types of research methods were used, 62.3% of the research-based articles relied on surveys or questionnaires. However, taking into account what could be an expected decline in interest for studying instruction for microforms, and an increased interest in studying instruction for the Internet, the types of articles published each year between 1971 and 2002 remained generally static. Conclusion – The authors conclude that, unsurprisingly, a select few journals are responsible for publishing the majority of articles on instruction in academic libraries, and note that these journals are “closely associated with academic librarianship and instruction” (85). The authors’ findings concerning the types of articles published over the course of the date range examined, although interesting, are equally unsurprising. What is surprising and alarming, is that only a quarter of all articles published are research-based. Furthermore, those articles that were found to be research-based did not often employ sophisticated research methods, preferring for example, the use of descriptive statistics over inferential statistics. Ideally, this article will spur the development and publication of more, and more rigorous, research-based scholarship in addition to pointing authors both to the journals most likely to publish their research and to the topics that have been historically (since 1971) underrepresented in the literature.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCommunication savante
Catégories consensuellesCommunication savante
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,831
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,637
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,074
Tête enseignante GPT0,353
Écart entre enseignants0,279 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeMême sujetLibrary Science and Information LiteracyTravaux en français237 207