Strategies for integrating information literacy and academic literacy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The article aims to describe challenges undergraduate students face in using scholarly articles and a workshop on reading designed to address those challenges. It seeks to present a study of senior public relations students' use, attitudes and confidence levels in using scholarly material. Design/methodology/approach Fourth‐year students who had participated in a reading workshop in their third year were surveyed before and after a workshop. The survey included qualitative questions on how students used scholarly articles, challenges they faced and strategies for using scholarly articles. A knowledge survey section assessed students' confidence levels in answering questions about a specific article. This section was re‐administered after the workshop. Findings Students use articles when they are required by assignments and/or to add authority to arguments. Students find jargon, length and mathematical aspects of articles challenging. They use a variety of strategies including summarizing, highlighting, and discussing articles with others. Some of these strategies correlated with higher knowledge survey scores. Research limitations/implications This was a relatively small study done on senior students in one course, but may be generalizable to students in other disciplines. Practical implications The study provides information on students' use of scholarly articles, and seems to indicate that instruction in techniques for reading has a beneficial effect on student attitudes and confidence levels. Originality/value The article provides direction for practice and research in information literacy instruction, expanding it beyond locating scholarly materials to interpreting and using them.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.200 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it