MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1654984740 · doi:10.18438/b8w60w

Skills Gained from University Library Instruction Sessions Are Perceived as Useful Four to Eight Weeks Later

2007· article· en· W1654984740 sur OpenAlexaffvenue
Lorie A. Kloda

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Établissements canadiensMcGill University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLikert scaleMedical educationLibrary instructionCurriculumPsychologyClass (philosophy)Sample (material)Information literacyMathematics educationComputer scienceMedicinePedagogy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Objective – To assess the impact of a university library instruction program.
 
 Design – Survey questionnaire administered post-intervention.
 
 Setting – A mid-size science and technology university in Hong Kong.
 
 Subjects – Student and staff participants in either course specific or open (elective) library instruction workshops.
 
 Methods – Surveys were conducted to measure the perceived effectiveness of the library instruction program, including various types of course specific (CS) and open workshops (OW). Librarians responsible for teaching nominated the sample of workshops for evaluation. Students in all but one CS workshop were provided with a 14-question paper questionnaire in class by their course instructor, while participants in all of the open workshops and one CS workshop received the same questionnaire via e-mail. The questionnaires were distributed between four to eight weeks following the workshops in order to gauge the “enduring” impact of the instruction. Most questions were closed, forcing participants to choose an answer from a list or select from a 4- or 7-point Likert scale. Comments were also solicited. Results were summarised and analysed using SPSS software. The CS and OW questionnaires were studied separately to allow for comparisons between groups.
 
 Main results – Out of 133 workshops taught in the fall of 2004, 25 were included in the sample: 15 CS and 10 OW. The overall response rate was 68%, with 466 participants completing questionnaires. Most participants indicated that the workshops were useful for learning about sources and search methods for finding information quickly. The majority (72.2%) responded that they felt an increase in confidence when conducting library research and slightly more than half (57.9%) agreed the workshops led to an increased interest in using the library. The responses differed significantly for the CS and OW groups: OW participants consistently rated the usefulness of the workshops higher than CS participants. In regards to retention of skills, 68.5% of participants responded in the affirmative when asked of they had continued using the skills taught, with rates ranging from 56 to 83% depending on the workshop. There was little difference in perceived retention between the CS and OW groups. The skills most frequently identified as having been learned included the abilities to “form better search strategies” and “find better Internet resources.” Written feedback included remarks on reducing class size and length, and increasing practice time and the number of handouts.
 
 Conclusion – A “delayed perception survey” revealed positive feedback from library workshop participants on questions about confidence, usefulness, and retention of skills learned. There was a significant difference in confidence levels reported between CS and OW groups, with OW participants reporting higher levels of confidence. The researchers surmise this might be a result of self-selection, as OW participants volunteered both to attend the library instruction workshops and to respond to the survey questionnaire. The short questionnaire is an efficient tool for assessing the perceived usefulness of library workshops for both course-integrated sessions and elective workshops.

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCommunication savante, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCommunication savante
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,701
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,690
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

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 Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,257
Écart entre enseignants0,245 · 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

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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