MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1821540433 · doi:10.18438/b8fs60

Constance Mellon Demonstrated That College Freshmen Are Afraid of Academic Libraries

2008· article· en· W1821540433 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Edgar C. Bailey

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-clésFeelingClass (philosophy)Grounded theoryPsychologyAcademic yearAnxietyMathematics educationMedical educationQualitative researchSocial psychologySociologyComputer scienceMedicineSocial science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A review of: 
 Mellon, Constance A. “Library Anxiety: A Grounded Theory and Its Development.” College & Research Libraries 47 (1986): 160-65.
 
 Objective – To better understand the feelings of college freshmen engaged in their first research project using an academic library.
 
 Design – Interpretive study involving analysis of personal writing describing the students’ research process and their reactions to it.
 
 Setting – A medium-sized public university in the southeastern United States.
 
 Subjects – Students in freshman English courses.
 
 Methods – English instructors assigned students to maintain search journals in which the students recorded a detailed description of their research process and the feelings they experienced while conducting research. In addition, students had to write an end-of- semester, in-class essay in which they discussed their initial reactions to the research project and how their feelings evolved over the semester. The journals and essays were analyzed using the “constant comparative” method developed by Glaser and Strauss to identify “recurrent ‘themes’” (161).
 
 Main Results – 75 to 85 per cent of the students reported feelings of “fear or anxiety” when confronted with the research assignment. More specifically, they expressed a sense of being “lost”. This feeling derived from four causes: “(1) the size of the library; (2) a lack of knowledge about where things were located; (3) how to begin, and (4) what to do” (162). Spurred by the question of why students did not seek help from their professors or a librarian, Mellon re-examined the data and uncovered two additional prevalent feelings. Most students tended to believe that their fellow students did not share their lack of library skills. They were ashamed of what they considered their own inadequacy and were, therefore, unwilling to reveal it by asking for assistance (162).
 
 Conclusions – The original objective of Mellon’s study was to gain information that would be useful in improving bibliographic instruction in her library. The discovery of the extent of students’ apprehension when confronted with a library research assignment came as something of a surprise. Mellon later noted that, at the time she was conducting her research, she first became aware of the symptoms of math anxiety and realized that they closely resembled those she had identified in students confronting a library research assignment. At that point she coined the now widely used term “library anxiety” (Mellon, “Library Anxiety and the Non-Traditional Student” 79). She further realised that the research on math anxiety suggested the syndrome could be at least partially alleviated by simply acknowledging its existence to students. As a result, instruction librarians began openly discussing the affective aspects of library research in their classes, assuring students that their feelings of apprehension were both “common and reasonable” (164). They also devoted more conscious effort to presenting themselves as caring and approachable people who genuinely understood students’ feelings and wanted to help them. In addition, English faculty began devoting more class time to teaching the research process, even spending some out-of-class time in the library working with reference librarians to assist students.

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)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCommunication savante
Catégories consensuellesaucune
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 enseignants0,952
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,905

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,737
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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 Opus0,032
Tête enseignante GPT0,279
Écart entre enseignants0,247 · 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; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

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

Citations4
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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