MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159995355 · doi:10.18438/b8161h

A Multiyear Curriculum-Integrated Information Literacy Program Increases the Confidence and Research Skills of Nursing Students, Although Not as Much as Expected

2015· article· en· W2159995355 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Elaine Sullo

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumCompetence (human resources)Information literacyNursingClass (philosophy)Medical educationNurse educationTest (biology)MedicinePsychologyComputer sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Review of: Farrell, A., Goosney, J., & Hutchens, K. (2013). Evaluation of the effectiveness of course integrated library instruction in an undergraduate nursing program. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 34(3), 164-175. doi: 10.5596/c13-061 Objective – To evaluate nursing students’ information literacy (IL) confidence and competence after a four year implementation of a curriculum-integrated information literacy program. Design – Web-based and paper-based information literacy questionnaire. Setting – Two Schools of Nursing in Newfoundland, Canada. Subjects – 422 undergraduate nursing students. Methods – A 20-item questionnaire was distributed to nursing students at two School of Nursing programs. Questions were designed to test one or more of the nine learning outcomes set forth for the IL program. At one School of Nursing, web-based questionnaires were sent via email, while paper-based questionnaires were distributed in class at the second School of Nursing. Main Results – Because response rates were low at one of the nursing schools, these questionnaire responses were not examined, nor were they included in the data analysis. The 422 completed questionnaires were divided into groups based on the number of IL sessions attended. The class of 2011 attended two out of three IL sessions, the class of 2012 attended all three IL sessions, and the classes of 2014 and 2015 did not attend any IL classes. There were 109 responses from class of 2011 students, 98 from class of 2012 students, and 215 from the classes of 2014 and 2015 (98 and 117, respectively). Results were reported according to the two main goals of the study – evaluating confidence levels and IL skills. Regarding confidence level, the class of 2012 felt more prepared than the other classes to begin evidence-informed practice (EIP). When asked about their confidence in the ability to perform research tasks, confidence levels rose between first year students and the class of 2011, but decreased between the class of 2011 and class of 2012. In regard to information literacy skills, when asked to identify appropriate tools for locating scholarly research articles, only 2.8% of the first year students correctly identified two resources. Within the class of 2011, 33.9% could correctly identify tools, while 57.1% of the class of 2012 correctly identified appropriate tools. For a series of questions that asked if students could make appropriate decisions about the use of scholarly and popular literature, there was overall improvement between the first year students and fourth year students. Several questions asked students about their understanding of different study types; students in all classes had difficulty with these questions. Additionally, there were questions related to identifying components of PICO (problem/population, intervention, comparison, outcome), and none of the students in the first year classes or in the 2011 class were able to correctly identify all four parts although 11.2 % of the class of 2012 identified all components correctly. Students were asked to create an answerable question using the PICO format, and 11.9% of the class of 2011, along with 11.2% from the class of 2012 and 3.7% from the first year class were able to do so. When asked to identify criteria for evaluating websites, 28.4% of students in the class of 2011 and 30.6% of the class of 2012 were able to list three correct criteria. Only 8.3% of the first year students answered this question correctly. Finally, students were given a research question and asked to select the best search statement; those who answered correctly included 28.4% of the class of 2011, 27.6% from the class of 2012, and 20.8% of first year students. Conclusions – The authors concluded that overall, IL skills improved from first to fourth year, although not as much as the anecdotal information from nursing faculty would indicate. This ongoing, four year study has prompted discussion on ways to improve the current IL component of the undergraduate nursing degree curriculum, and changes will be implemented in a future version of this curriculum.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.430 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207