MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1920268277 · doi:10.21083/partnership.v2i2.295

Faculty Motivations: An Exploratory Study of Motivational Factors of Faculty to Assist with Students’ Research Skills Development

2007· article· en· W1920268277 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsPsychologyPremiseCurriculumInformation literacyMedical educationExploratory researchGrounded theoryLibrary instructionQualitative researchPedagogyMathematics educationSociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on the premise that collaboration with faculty is a core element for the success of an IL program, this study sought to investigate the intrinsic motivations of faculty to assist their students’ development of information literacy skills. Research into the relationship between faculty and the library and librarians has left many unanswered questions about why faculty value research skills yet appear to be resistant to opportunities to collaborate with a librarian. The question arises: does attitude sufficiently predict the behaviour of faculty? Motivation (the underlying energy and direction of behaviour) may be a more likely predictor of behaviour. This article reports findings from qualitative study which sought to uncover the motivational factors of faculty to address the library research skills of students. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted in the fall semester 2004 with teaching faculty at the University of Guelph. Participants were asked to discuss their use of course-integrated library/research instruction. In its absence, faculty were asked how (if at all) did they assist students to learn to do research. Transcripts were analyzed using grounded theory methodology. Findings suggest that faculty are motivated by their desire to produce independent learners with transferable skills. Scholars look for potential students for the next generation of scholars – graduate students. They see a link between the development of research skills and readers –an audience for their work. Some participants who had not previously collaborated with a librarian described their own methods of integrating research skills development in the curriculum. Findings are encouraging and support librarians in their efforts to promote information literacy instruction as a critical skill in undergraduate education.

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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.067
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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.276 · 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