MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1503006610

Information Literacy Instruction: Theory and Practice

2011· article· en· W1503006610 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thumeka Mgwigwi

Bibliographic record

VenuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation literacyTerminologyLibrary instructionCritical literacyLiteracyMathematics educationSection (typography)PedagogyComputer scienceLibrary scienceSociologyPsychologyLinguisticsPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grassian, Esther S.; Kaplowitz, Joan R. Information Literacy Instruction: Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Neal-Schuman Publishers, 2009. 412 pp. 80.00 USD. ISBN-13: 978-1555706661. ∞ Instruction librarians have been working hard to find ways to deliver more effective instruction sessions since the days of bibliographic instruction, and as such have become pioneers of information literacy evolution. Through the years, countless information literacy instruction publications have appeared in the form of articles, books, etc., and Information Literacy Instruction: Theory and Practice is no exception. The book is divided into five themed sections and seventeen chapters. Part one covers the background and history of information literacy. The introduction examines the librarian's role in information literacy instruction and how the characteristics of students and the classroom have changed in terms of technology use by both students and instruction librarians. This section also looks at the history of the definition of information literacy from the 1960s, when information literacy was called bibliographic instruction, to the 1980s when Patricia S. Breivik first came up with the definition of information literacy which was later endorsed by the American Library Association. Part two looks at information literacy instruction building blocks covering learning theories. Chapter three provides a basic overview of the concepts, terminology and prominent figures in the areas of psychological learning theories. As information literacy is concerned with students' critical thinking and active learning skills, chapter six defines critical thinking and how these skills can be applied to student learning. This chapter also looks at the history and definition of active learning and provides tips on when, where and how active learning can be applied to information literacy instruction. Some useful active learning techniques which librarians can apply in the classroom, such as role playing and scavenger hunts, have been provided. While Parts one and two look at the theoretical aspects of information literacy, parts three and four cover practical aspects such as planning, development and delivery of information literacy instruction. The authors describe the planning stages in chapter seven as recognizing the learner's need, analyzing the situation, developing goals, designing assessment methods, implementing the plan and reviewing assessment data. The 'Instructional Menu', which is chapter eight, looks at different forms of instruction, i.e., synchronous or asynchronous, remote or face-to-face, paper and online instruction. The authors also give advice on when to use which form of instruction, and points to consider when making your decision, including time, budget, staffing etc. As effective teaching cannot occur without some form of assessment, the most important chapter in this section is chapter eleven which is about assessment. This chapter has a detailed section on why librarians should include assessment in their instruction while the rest of the chapter covers different levels and types of assessment tools. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and ResearchSame topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207