MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1879015476 · doi:10.18438/b85w21

Enrollment in a Library Credit Course is Positively Related to the College Graduation Rates of Full Time Students

2015· article· en· W1879015476 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sara Sharun

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraduation (instrument)CohortMedical educationAcademic yearTest (biology)PsychologyMedicineMathematics educationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Review of:
 Cook, J.M. (2014). A Library credit course and student success rates: A longitudinal study. College & Research Libraries 75(3), 272-283. doi:10.5860/crl12-424
 
 Abstract
 
 Objective – To determine the impact of a credit-bearing information literacy skills course on student success rates.
 
 Design – Observational Study. 
 
 Setting – An academic library at a mid-sized university in Georgia, United States of America.
 
 Subjects – Nine cohorts of students (n=15,012) who entered the institution for the first time, on a full-time basis, each year between 1999 and 2007. 
 
 Methods – Aggregate data on each student cohort was gathered from the Department of Institutional Research and Planning. Data included high school ACT and SAT scores, high school graduating GPAs, college graduating GPAs, and college graduation dates. The nine cohorts were each divided into two groups: students who took a credit library course (LIBR 1101) at some point during their student career, and students who did not. For each cohort, a Pearson Chi-Square test was used to determine statistical correlation between library course enrollment and four-, five-, and six-year graduation rates. Z-tests were used to determine a difference in the average graduation GPA of students who did and did not take the course, as well as a difference in the average high school graduation GPA, ACT, and SAT scores of the two groups in each cohort.
 
 Main Results – Graduation rates were positively associated with students who took the library course at some point during their studies. Students who took the library course graduated at higher rates than students who did not: 56% of those students who took the library course graduated within the study’s time frame, compared to 30% of those who did not take the course. On average, there was no significant difference in college graduation GPAs between students who did and did not take LIBR 1101. During the time period of the study, more students who took the course graduated than those who did not, but those students who took the course did not have higher graduating GPAs. 
 
 Conclusion – Students who enrolled in LIBR 1101 at some point in their studies graduated at a significantly higher rate than students who did not.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.558
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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