MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2171362409 · doi:10.18438/b8jg76

Information Literacy Articles in Science Pedagogy Journals

2013· article· en· W2171362409 sur OpenAlexaffvenue
Cara Bradley

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Regina
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésInformation literacyTerminologyRelevance (law)Subject (documents)Inclusion (mineral)CitationLibrary scienceScientific literacyLiteracyComputer sciencePsychologySociologyMathematics educationScience educationPedagogyPolitical scienceSocial scienceLinguistics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Objective – This study sought to determine the extent to which articles about information literacy-related topics have been published in science pedagogy journals. It also explored the nature of these references, in terms of authorship, Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) information literacy competency standards addressed, and degree of emphasis on information literacy topics. In addition to characterizing information literacy in the science pedagogy literature, the study presents a methodology that can be adopted by future efforts to explore representations of information literacy in the literature of additional academic disciplines. 
 
 Methods – The 2011 Journal Citation Reports® Science edition was used to identify the 15 journals with the highest impact factor in the “Education—Scientific Disciplines” subject category. Initially Web of Science was searched to identify occurrences of “information literacy” and related terms in the journals of interest during the 10 year period 2002-2011. This was supplemented by a title scan of the articles to ensure inclusion of relevant items that did not include library-centric terminology. Abstracts and, where necessary, full papers were reviewed to confirm relevance. Only articles were included: editorials, news items, letters, and resource reviews were excluded from the analysis. 
 
 Articles selected for inclusion were read in their entirety. Professional designations for each author were identified to characterize the authorship of this body of literature. Articles were also classified according to levels developed by O’Connor (2008), to indicate whether information literacy was a “Major Topic,” “Substantive Focus,” “Incidental Mention,” or “Not Explicitly Named.” Further analysis mapped each article to the ACRL information literacy competency standards (2000), to provide more detailed insight into which standards are most frequently addressed in this body of literature. 
 
 Results – Articles on information literacy-related topics appear only sporadically in science pedagogy journals, and that frequency varies depending on the specific subject area. Overall, librarians contribute a relatively small proportion of these articles, and are more likely to co-author with teaching faculty/graduate students than to publish alone or with other librarians. The degree of focus on information literacy topics (O’Connor level) varies depending on article authorship, with librarians more likely to treat information literacy as the “Major Focus” of their work. Additionally, the articles tend to cluster around ACRL information literacy standards two, three, and especially four, rather than addressing them equally. 
 
 Conclusions – The presence of some articles on information literacy-related topics in science pedagogy journals suggests that there is a willingness among these journals to publish work in this area. Despite this, relatively few librarians have pursued this publication option, choosing instead to publish articles on information literacy topics within the library and information studies (LIS) literature. As a result, librarians are missing out on the opportunity to share their published work in venues more likely to be seen and valued by subject faculty, and on the chance to familiarize science educators with information literacy topics. Future research should focus on: librarians’ rationale when selecting target publications for their information literacy writing; science educator interest in writing and reading about information literacy topics in their pedagogical journals; and the impact of articles about information literacy in these journals on subject faculty perceptions of the topic’s importance.
 
 The methods used in this research have implications for the study of information literacy in other academic disciplines, and demonstrate that the study of information literacy in the literature of academic disciplines can provide valuable insights into representations and characterizations of information literacy in diverse fields of study. A better understanding of how subject faculty think and write about information literacy in their scholarly literature could have a significant impact on how librarians approach and collaborate with faculty in all fields of study.

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)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCommunication savante, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCommunication savante, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
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 enseignants0,944
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0060,951
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,001

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 Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,339
Écart entre enseignants0,319 · 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

Citations4
Publié2013
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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