Assessing the Impact of Reference Assistance and Library Instruction on Retention and Grades Using Student Tracking Technology
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Objective – To assess the impact of community college academic librarians upon student retention and grades through reference desk visits and attendance in library instruction classes. Methods – Student ID data used for this research was collected from students that visited the reference desk to consult about a course-related question or attended a library instruction class for a specific course. After consenting to share their student ID number, the students’ IDs were scanned and uploaded to a Blackboard Analytics data warehouse. A Pyramid Analytics reporting tool was used to query and extract student-level retention and grade data based upon whether the student had visited the reference desk or attended a library instruction class. Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were used to discern any statistical difference in retention rates and grades between students that engaged a librarian through reference or instruction and the general student population. Results – When comparing fall-to-fall retention for all degree-seeking students, students that visited the reference desk or attended a library instruction class had a statistically higher rate of retention. When comparing fall-to-fall retention within low-retention student cohorts, students that visited the reference desk or attended a library instruction class had higher rates of retention among all low-retention cohorts. Eight of 10 cohorts were statistically higher for library instruction and 6 of 10 cohorts were statistically higher for reference visits. With respect to course grades, only 1 of 5 high enrollment courses showed a higher grade average for students that attended a library instruction class. None of the differences in average grades between students that attended a library instruction class and all students in the five courses were statistically significant. For the impact of a reference visit upon a course grade, all five courses showed a higher average grade average for students that visited the reference desk for a question related to their course than all students in the course. Four of the 5 differences were statistically significant. Conclusions – The data collected by systematically tracking students that interact with community college librarians suggests that reference desk visits and attendance of library instruction classes both have a positive, statistically significant impact upon student retention. When looking at course grades, the data does not indicate a statistically significant positive or negative impact for library instruction. The impact of visiting the reference desk upon course grades does suggest a strong, statistically significant positive correlation.
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 | 0,009 | 0,045 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,002 |
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 ».