MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415451287 · doi:10.11645/10.1.2065

Instructor perceptions of student information literacy:

2016· article· en· W2415451287 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patricia Sandercock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Information Literacy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation literacyPerceptionCurriculumPsychologyMedical educationHigher educationMathematics educationPedagogyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assesses the information literacy (IL) perceptions of instructors at a technical college in the Middle East, the College of the North Atlantic - Qatar. Students at this college are instructed in four areas of study – engineering technology, information technology, business studies and health sciences – which takes place exclusively in English and uses a Canadian curriculum. A web-based survey sent to instructors asked questions in two general areas on their perceptions of student information literacy based on the Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL) definition. Initially, over half of the respondents believed that their students were information literate. However when asked a series of questions about each of the seven IL skills identified by SCONUL, there was a large discrepancy between what skills instructors wished their students achieved, versus what was actually achieved by the end of their programme. Students’ inability to critically evaluate sources of information was seen as the weakest skill by instructors and was considerably lower than the skill level reported by university professors in similar studies. Instructors also conveyed their belief that students lacked strategies when searching for information. When compared to faculty perceptions of students in universities, overall perceptions of IL competency of college students in this study are lower. The study reinforced the need to provide students with tools/strategies to cope with large volumes of information and, when searching, to select appropriate and credible sources of information for both academic and personal uses.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Information LiteracySame topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207