Library Instruction for Freshman English: A Multi-Year Assessment of Student Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective – The objective of this study was twofold: 1) to assess the effectiveness of curriculum changes made from the 2009 freshman English library instruction curriculum to the 2010 curriculum at Loyola Marymount University (LMU); and 2) to evaluate the effectiveness of library instruction delivered via a “blended” combination of face-to-face and online instruction versus online instruction alone. Methods – An experimental design compared random samples of student scores from 2009 and 2010 worksheets to determine the effects of a new curriculum on student learning. A second experiment examined the effect of delivery method on student learning by comparing scores from a group of students receiving only online instruction against a group receiving blended instruction. Results – The first component of the study, which compared scores between 2009 and 2010 to examine the effects of the curriculum revisions, had mixed results. Students scored a significantly higher mean in 2010 on completing and correctly listing book citation components than in 2009, but a significantly lower mean on constructing a research question. There was a significant difference in the distribution of scores for understanding differences between information found on the Internet versus through the Library that was better in 2010 than 2009, but worse for narrowing a broad research topic. For the study that examined computer aided instruction, the group of students receiving only computer-assisted instruction did significantly better overall than the group receiving blended instruction. When separate tests were run for each skill, two particular skills, generating keywords and completing book citation and location elements, resulted in a significantly higher mean. Conclusions – The comparison of scores between 2009 and 2010 were mixed, but the evaluation process helped us identify continued problems in the teaching materials to address in the next cycle of revisions. The second part of the study supports the idea that computer-assisted instruction is equally or more effective than blended instruction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".