Undergraduate students do not understand some library jargon typically used in library instruction
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A review of: Hutcherson, Norman B. “Library Jargon: Student Recognition of Terms and Concepts Commonly Used by Librarians in the Classroom.” College and Research Libraries 65.4 (July 2004): 349-54. Objective – To determine students’ level of recognition for 28 commonly used terms in library instruction. Design – Survey, multiple-choice questionnaire. Setting – Large state university library in the United States (this is assumed from the author’s current affiliation). Subjects – 300 first- and second-year university students enrolled in a library skills course between September 2000 and June 2003. Methods – Two 15-question multiple-choice questionnaires were created to verify students’ understanding of 28 terms commonly used in library instruction, or “library jargon”. Each questionnaire included 12 unique terms and, in order to ensure consistency between questionnaire results, three common terms. For each question, a definition was provided and four terms, including the correct one, were offered as possible answers. Four variants of each survey were developed with varied question and answer order. Students who completed a seven-week library skills lab received one of the two questionnaires. Lab instructors explained the objective of the survey and the students completed them in 10 to 15 minutes during class time. Of the 300 students enrolled in the lab between September 2000 and June 2003, 297 returned completed questionnaires. The researcher used Microsoft Excel to calculate descriptive statistics, including the mean, median, and standard deviation for individual questionnaires as well as combined results. No demographic data were collected. Main results – The mean score for both questionnaires was 62.31% (n=297). That is, on average, students answered 9.35 out of 15 questions correctly, with a standard deviation of +-4.12. Students were able to recognize library-related terms to varying degrees. Terms identified correctly most often included: plagiarism (100%), reference services (94.60%), research (94.00%), copyright (91.58%), and table of contents (90.50%). Terms identified correctly the least often included: Boolean logic (8.10%), bibliography (14.90%), controlled vocabulary (18.10%), truncation (27.70%), and precision (31.80%). For the three terms used in both questionnaires, results were similar. Conclusion – The results of this study demonstrate that terms used more widely (e.g. plagiarism, copyright) are more often recognized by students compared with terms used less frequently (e.g. Boolean logic, truncation). Also, terms whose meanings are well-understood in everyday language, such as citation and authority, may be misunderstood in the context of library instruction. For this reason, it can be assumed that students may be confused when faced with this unfamiliar terminology. The study makes recommendations for librarians to take measures to prevent misunderstandings during library instruction such as defining terms used and reducing the use of library jargon.
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 | 0,002 | 0,014 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,006 |
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 ».