‘Where to start?’: Considerations for faculty and librarians in delivering information literacy instruction for graduate students.
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
It is often assumed that incoming graduate students are information literate, yet many of them lack the skills needed to effectively organize and critically evaluate research. Supporting students in acquiring information literacy skills is a critical role for universities, as it improves the quality of student research and enhances their opportunities for lifelong learning. The literature in this area has focused on the partnership between librarians and course instructors, which has been shown to produce the most effective library instruction: however, additional research is needed concerning the collaborative approach to teaching information literacy to graduate students. The current study used action research to gather information on students’ perceptions of a blend of two methods of library instruction, a web-based tutorial and an in-class library instruction session. While few students indicated engagement with the online tutorial, most students appreciated the in-class session. Recommendations for information literacy instruction and further research are included.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it