MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1654984740 · doi:10.18438/b8w60w

Skills Gained from University Library Instruction Sessions Are Perceived as Useful Four to Eight Weeks Later

2007· article· en· W1654984740 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lorie A. Kloda

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLikert scaleMedical educationLibrary instructionCurriculumPsychologyClass (philosophy)Sample (material)Information literacyMathematics educationComputer scienceMedicinePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective – To assess the impact of a university library instruction program. Design – Survey questionnaire administered post-intervention. Setting – A mid-size science and technology university in Hong Kong. Subjects – Student and staff participants in either course specific or open (elective) library instruction workshops. Methods – Surveys were conducted to measure the perceived effectiveness of the library instruction program, including various types of course specific (CS) and open workshops (OW). Librarians responsible for teaching nominated the sample of workshops for evaluation. Students in all but one CS workshop were provided with a 14-question paper questionnaire in class by their course instructor, while participants in all of the open workshops and one CS workshop received the same questionnaire via e-mail. The questionnaires were distributed between four to eight weeks following the workshops in order to gauge the “enduring” impact of the instruction. Most questions were closed, forcing participants to choose an answer from a list or select from a 4- or 7-point Likert scale. Comments were also solicited. Results were summarised and analysed using SPSS software. The CS and OW questionnaires were studied separately to allow for comparisons between groups. Main results – Out of 133 workshops taught in the fall of 2004, 25 were included in the sample: 15 CS and 10 OW. The overall response rate was 68%, with 466 participants completing questionnaires. Most participants indicated that the workshops were useful for learning about sources and search methods for finding information quickly. The majority (72.2%) responded that they felt an increase in confidence when conducting library research and slightly more than half (57.9%) agreed the workshops led to an increased interest in using the library. The responses differed significantly for the CS and OW groups: OW participants consistently rated the usefulness of the workshops higher than CS participants. In regards to retention of skills, 68.5% of participants responded in the affirmative when asked of they had continued using the skills taught, with rates ranging from 56 to 83% depending on the workshop. There was little difference in perceived retention between the CS and OW groups. The skills most frequently identified as having been learned included the abilities to “form better search strategies” and “find better Internet resources.” Written feedback included remarks on reducing class size and length, and increasing practice time and the number of handouts. Conclusion – A “delayed perception survey” revealed positive feedback from library workshop participants on questions about confidence, usefulness, and retention of skills learned. There was a significant difference in confidence levels reported between CS and OW groups, with OW participants reporting higher levels of confidence. The researchers surmise this might be a result of self-selection, as OW participants volunteered both to attend the library instruction workshops and to respond to the survey questionnaire. The short questionnaire is an efficient tool for assessing the perceived usefulness of library workshops for both course-integrated sessions and elective workshops.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207