Can playing Minecraft improve teenagers’ 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
Some research suggests that a significant number of Generation Z teenagers (those born in the late 1990s or early 2000s) display an insufficient level of information literacy (IL) to function effectively in an information-based society. Yet many of them are gamers who succeed at accomplishing game-related tasks that require a number of IL skills such as information seeking, the critical assessment of sources and relevance ranking of information. This paper describes the results of an interpretive case study of the information behaviours of teenage gamers that supports the hypothesis that the online game Minecraft supports the development of such IL skills. The online interactions of 510 participants of a public discussion forum on Minecraft and interviews from eight teenage Minecraft gamers, as well as the game itself, were analysed. This study suggest that some aspects of Minecraft’s design effectively induce players to seek out game-related information in affinity spaces (online informal learning spaces), select appropriate sources, evaluate the information shared by fellow gamers and decide which information best satisfies their needs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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