MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171362409 · doi:10.18438/b8jg76

Information Literacy Articles in Science Pedagogy Journals

2013· article· en· W2171362409 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Cara Bradley

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation literacyTerminologyRelevance (law)Subject (documents)Inclusion (mineral)CitationLibrary scienceScientific literacyLiteracyComputer sciencePsychologySociologyMathematics educationScience educationPedagogyPolitical scienceSocial scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective – This study sought to determine the extent to which articles about information literacy-related topics have been published in science pedagogy journals. It also explored the nature of these references, in terms of authorship, Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) information literacy competency standards addressed, and degree of emphasis on information literacy topics. In addition to characterizing information literacy in the science pedagogy literature, the study presents a methodology that can be adopted by future efforts to explore representations of information literacy in the literature of additional academic disciplines. 
 
 Methods – The 2011 Journal Citation Reports® Science edition was used to identify the 15 journals with the highest impact factor in the “Education—Scientific Disciplines” subject category. Initially Web of Science was searched to identify occurrences of “information literacy” and related terms in the journals of interest during the 10 year period 2002-2011. This was supplemented by a title scan of the articles to ensure inclusion of relevant items that did not include library-centric terminology. Abstracts and, where necessary, full papers were reviewed to confirm relevance. Only articles were included: editorials, news items, letters, and resource reviews were excluded from the analysis. 
 
 Articles selected for inclusion were read in their entirety. Professional designations for each author were identified to characterize the authorship of this body of literature. Articles were also classified according to levels developed by O’Connor (2008), to indicate whether information literacy was a “Major Topic,” “Substantive Focus,” “Incidental Mention,” or “Not Explicitly Named.” Further analysis mapped each article to the ACRL information literacy competency standards (2000), to provide more detailed insight into which standards are most frequently addressed in this body of literature. 
 
 Results – Articles on information literacy-related topics appear only sporadically in science pedagogy journals, and that frequency varies depending on the specific subject area. Overall, librarians contribute a relatively small proportion of these articles, and are more likely to co-author with teaching faculty/graduate students than to publish alone or with other librarians. The degree of focus on information literacy topics (O’Connor level) varies depending on article authorship, with librarians more likely to treat information literacy as the “Major Focus” of their work. Additionally, the articles tend to cluster around ACRL information literacy standards two, three, and especially four, rather than addressing them equally. 
 
 Conclusions – The presence of some articles on information literacy-related topics in science pedagogy journals suggests that there is a willingness among these journals to publish work in this area. Despite this, relatively few librarians have pursued this publication option, choosing instead to publish articles on information literacy topics within the library and information studies (LIS) literature. As a result, librarians are missing out on the opportunity to share their published work in venues more likely to be seen and valued by subject faculty, and on the chance to familiarize science educators with information literacy topics. Future research should focus on: librarians’ rationale when selecting target publications for their information literacy writing; science educator interest in writing and reading about information literacy topics in their pedagogical journals; and the impact of articles about information literacy in these journals on subject faculty perceptions of the topic’s importance.
 
 The methods used in this research have implications for the study of information literacy in other academic disciplines, and demonstrate that the study of information literacy in the literature of academic disciplines can provide valuable insights into representations and characterizations of information literacy in diverse fields of study. A better understanding of how subject faculty think and write about information literacy in their scholarly literature could have a significant impact on how librarians approach and collaborate with faculty in all fields of study.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0060.951
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.319 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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