Exploring the connections between information literacy and writing for international students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This exploratory study sought to investigate how the information literacy process and the writing process may simultaneously be experienced by international students working at both the graduate and undergraduate level. Any connections or intersections that were observed between the two processes were described with an eye towards informing the practice of academic librarians who work with non-native speakers of English. The investigation was framed by a language learning perspective. Methodology: This study used a mixed-method approach. Investigation of the international graduate students who were non-native speakers of English took place through the use of an online survey that consisted of open-ended questions. Investigation of the international undergraduate students who had more limited proficiency in English took place through quantitative means, whereby samples of their produced output on a writing assignment were collected by the researcher and assigned numeric scores indicating both their writing abilities and their information literacy abilities. Findings: Evidence of information literacy and the writing process taking place simultaneously was found for both graduate and undergraduate students who were non-native speakers of English. The graduate student group showed a strong connection between the two processes as they described intersections at critical junctures during the writing of their research essays. They engaged in library practices that can also be viewed as language learning experiences. Undergraduate students who were non-native speakers of English also engaged in both processes simultaneously but no strong correlation was found between the two sets of scores. Originality and Practical Implications: Library literature offers us some information on the information literacy needs of international students but it does not offer any in-depth study that examines how the processes of information literacy and writing may be connected for this particular group of users. In framing a closer look at how these processes appear through a language learning lens, academic librarians may learn how to work more effectively with these students.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".