What is the Best Way to Develop Information Literacy and Academic Skills of First Year Health Science Students? A Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Objective – This systematic review sought to identify evidence for best practice to support the development of information literacy and academic skills of first year undergraduate health science students. Methods – A range of electronic databases were searched and hand searches conducted. Initial results were screened using explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify 53 relevant articles. Data on study design, student cohort, support strategy, and learning outcomes were extracted from each article. Quality of individual studies was considered and described narratively. Articles were classified and findings synthesized according to the mode of delivery of the intervention (Embedded, Integrated, or Adjunct) and classification of the study’s learning evaluation outcome (Organizational change, Behaviour, Learning, or Reaction). Results – Studies included in this review provide information on academic skills and information literacy support strategies offered to over 12,000 first year health science students. Courses targeted were varied but most commonly involved nursing, followed by psychology. Embedded strategies were adopted in 21 studies with Integrated and Adjunct strategies covered in 14 and 16 studies respectively. Across all modes of delivery, intervention formats included face-to-face, peer mentoring, online, and print based approaches, either solely or in combination. Most studies provided some outcomes at a level higher than student reaction to the intervention. Overall, irrespective of mode of delivery, positive learning outcomes were generally reported. Typically, findings of individual studies were confounded by the absence of suitable control groups, students self-selecting support and analysis of outcomes not accounting for these issues. As a result, there is very little unbiased, evaluative evidence for the best approach to supporting students. Nonetheless, our findings did identify poor student uptake of strategies when they are not interwoven into the curriculum, even when students were encouraged to attend on the basis that they had been identified at academic risk. Conclusions – The majority of studies included have reported positive learning outcomes following the implementation of academic skills and information literacy support strategies, irrespective of their mode of delivery (Embedded, Integrated, or Adjunct). Clear, rigorous evidence that embedded strategies offer superior learning outcomes compared to other delivery modes is lacking. However, because of poor student uptake of strategies offered outside curricula, embedded modes of academic and information literacy support are recommended for first year health science courses.
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 | 0,016 | 0,066 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,011 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,012 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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.
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 ».