Faculty attitudes, perceptions and experiences of information 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
This Canadian-based survey research study investigates the information literacy (IL) instruction practices, attitudes and knowledge of university faculty. Findings are based on results from an online survey of all full-time faculty at York University. The value of this paper lies, firstly, in its contribution to a field of enquiry where a research deficit has been identified. Second, it contributes to IL research and practice by both synthesizing and corroborating some of the findings of earlier studies of a similar nature. This and other studies establish that many faculty attitudes and practices regarding IL instruction have remained relatively constant over time by revealing evidence of a strong and enduring faculty belief in the value of solid student IL proficiencies, concerns that these proficiencies fall below desired standards; the view that IL instruction is beneficial; and evidence of disconnects between expressed beliefs and actual IL practice. Third, this study builds on what is already known by uncovering disciplinary differences in faculty opinions and practices in the domain of IL instruction and by providing insights on how faculty’s perceptions and rankings of different types of IL competencies are evolving and changing in an increasingly web-based information universe.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.157 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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