International students and information literacy: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study was designed to explore the library and information science research on international students and information literacy published between 1990 and 2014. Design/methodology/approach Systematic review was used to identify and analyze publications from a 25-year period. Three major library information science (LIS) databases were searched for publications meeting the study criteria, and then manual bibliography searches were performed on all those included. Findings Twenty-one of the 23 included publications were papers published in scholarly journals. There was a slight growth in number of publications by year between 1990 and 2014. Most of the research was conducted in the USA, Australia or Canada. Surveys and interviews were the most commonly used research methods, and nine of the studies used mixed methods. “Library experience” and “information seeking” emerged as the most common research topics. Key findings presented in these papers were often related to library and non-library resources, library instruction, language issues and research difficulties experienced by international students. Author recommendations were generally related to campus collaboration, staff training, assessment, cultural awareness and library instruction. Practical implications The findings of this study will be of value for LIS practitioners who wish to develop or improve information literacy training for the international student populations on their campuses. Originality/value Systematic review is a useful and rigorous method that can be of value in LIS research. This paper provides a thorough review and assessment of the original research related to international students and information literacy, and summarizes the resulting recommendations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".