Graduate Students May Need Information Literacy Instruction as Much as Undergraduates
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Review of: Conway, Kate. (2011). How prepared are students for postgraduate study? A comparison of the information literacy skills of commencing undergraduate and postgraduate studies students at Curtin University. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 42(2), 121-135. Abstract Objective – To determine whether there is a difference in the information literacy skills of postgraduate and undergraduate students beginning an information studies program, and to examine the influence of demographic characteristics on information literacy skills. Design – Online, multiple choice questionnaire to test basic information literacy skills. Setting – Information studies program at a large university in Western Australia. Subjects – 64 information studies students who responded to an email invitation to participate in an online questionnaire, a 44% response rate. Of those responding, 23 were undergraduates and 41 were postgraduates. Methods – Over the course of two semesters, an online survey was administered. In order to measure student performance against established standards, 25 test questions were aligned with the Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy Framework (ANZIIL) (Bundy, 2004), an adapted version of the ACRL Information Literacy Standards for Higher Education (Association of College & Research Libraries, 2000). In the first semester that the survey was administered, 9 demographic questions were asked and 11 in the second semester. Participants were invited to respond voluntarily to the questionnaire via email. Results were presented as descriptive statistics, comparing undergraduate and postgraduate student performance. The results were not tested for statistical significance and the author did not control for confounding variables. Main Results – Postgraduate respondents scored an average of 77% on the test questionnaire, while undergraduates scored an average of 69%. The 25% of respondents who had previous work experience in a library achieved average scores of 79%, in contrast to 69% among those who had not worked in a library. Average scores for undergraduates in the 20-30 age group were 81%, while those in the 30-40 age group averaged 65%. Among both undergraduate and postgraduate students, scores may indicate deficiencies in information literacy skills in several areas, including parsing citations, strategies for locating specific content, and defining an information need. Conclusion – The study concludes that postgraduate students’ information literacy skills may be marginally better than the skills of undergraduates. Age was found to be associated with higher performance among undergraduate students, and a variety of “basic” information literacy skills may elude many respondents. These findings might prompt librarians and instructors to look closely at gaps in information literacy knowledge among students at both the undergraduate and postgraduate level.
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 | 0,001 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,073 | 0,028 |
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 ».