First-year Student Essays Shed Light on their Experience of ACRL Framework Threshold Concepts
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Review of: Dempsey, P. R., & Jagman, H. (2016). I felt like such a freshman: First-year students crossing the library threshold. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 16(1), 89-107. https:doi.org/10.1353/pla.2016.0011 Abstract Objective – To synthesize student narratives on searching for an item in the library and to identify information literacy threshold concepts students encountered during their searching. Design – Constant comparative analysis. Setting – Academic library at an urban American university. Subjects – A sample of 97 1-to-2 page ungraded first year student essays. Methods – A library assignment was developed for first year students in a required academic skills course. Students wrote the essay for peer mentors. After completing the essay, students were asked if they wanted to participate in the study. For the assignment, students were asked to find a library item of interest and write a reflective essay on the process. Essays were analyzed using NVIVO software. The researchers developed codes independently, then came together to review, discuss and recode the essays. Using the constant comparison method, themes were identified from the coding. Narrative analysis was used to understand the coding in the context of the students’ experiences. Main Results – The authors outlined various search paths that the students described in their essays. The main emotional responses in the essays were surprise, confusion, and excitement. Three ACRL Framework IL concepts were identified in the analysis: Scholarship as Conversation, Searching as Strategic Exploration, and Research as Inquiry. Scholarship as a Conversation was exemplified through students’ selection of a library item. Students chose topics that were of academic interest or associated with personal identity. In the essays, students explained their connection to the item they found, making the connection to the ongoing scholarly conversation. Searching as Strategic Exploration was expressed through student descriptions of connecting the call number to the subject classifications. Some students sailed through, whereas others encountered challenges. Some found that previous library mental models failed, found the catalogue overwhelming, or thought the organization of material was at fault rather than their own skills. Some students described how they overcame their challenges. Students also discussed balancing self-reliance and seeking help when searching for an item. This related to the ACRL frames of Research as Inquiry and Searching as Strategic Exploration. Attitudes on seeking help ranged from complete reliance to anxiety. Conclusion – This library assignment offered students the opportunity to pursue their own interests and goals. It also encouraged exploration, problem-solving, and reflection. The assignment design allowed students to grapple with information literacy threshold concepts in a safe and independent environment, demonstrating learning and engagement with academia.
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 | 0,008 | 0,043 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 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 ».