Engineering Faculty Indicate High Levels of Awareness and Use of the Library but Tend to Consult Google and Google Scholar First for Research Resources
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Review of:
 Zhang, L. (2015). Use of library services by engineering faculty at Mississippi State University, a large land grant institution. Science & Technology Libraries, 34(3), 272-286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2015.1090941
 
 Objective – To investigate the engineering faculty’s information-seeking behaviour, experiences, awareness, and use of the university library.
 
 Design – Web-based survey questionnaire.
 
 Setting – The main campus of a state university in the United States of America.
 
 Subjects – 119 faculty members within 8 engineering departments. 
 
 Methods – An email invitation to participate in a 16-item electronic survey questionnaire, with questions related to library use, was sent in the spring of 2015 to 119 engineering faculty members. Faculty were given 24 days to complete the survey, and a reminder email was sent 10 days after the original survey invitation. 
 
 Main Results – Thirty-eight faculty members responded to the survey, representing a response rate of 32%. Overall, faculty had a high level of use and awareness of both online and physical library resources and services, although their awareness of certain scholarly communication services, such as data archiving and copyright advisory, was significantly lower. Faculty tend to turn to Google and Google Scholar when searching for information rather than turning to library databases. Faculty do not use social media to keep up with library news and updates. The library website, as well as liaison librarians, were cited as the primary sources for this type of information. 
 
 Conclusions – The researcher concludes that librarians need to do a better job of marketing library resources, such as discipline-specific databases, as well as other library search tools. Because faculty use web search engines as a significant source of information, the author proposes further research on this behaviour, and suggests more action to educate faculty on different search tools, their limitations, and effective use.
 
 As faculty indicated a general lack of interest in integrating information literacy into their classes, the researcher notes that librarians need to find ways to persuade faculty that this type of integrated instruction is beneficial for students’ learning and research needs. Faculty were aware of the library liaison program, so this baseline relationship between faculty and librarian can serve as an opportunity to build upon current liaison services and responsibilities.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,418 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».