An Evaluation of the Use of the PLUS Model to Develop Pupils' Information Skills in a Secondary School
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
Various models of information skills have been developed and applied in schools in North America, Australia, and the United Kingdom in recent years, but there have been few attempts to evaluate the application of the models. This article reports a study of the evaluation of the use of the PLUS model in a secondary school in England. The PLUS model (Herring, 1996; Herring, 1999) categorizes information skills into four interrelated steps: Purpose, Location, Use, and Self-Evaluation. In this study, the PLUS model was used by 112 Year 7 pupils (11-12-year-olds) studying physics. Each pupil completed a questionnaire relating to aspects of information skills and the use of the PLUS model. The views of the school librarian and the physics teacher were gained via semistructured interviews. The main findings of the study were: pupils benefited from using a structured approach to project work; pupils saw the model as a useful tool particularly in helping them to plan, organize, and reflect on their own work; and pupils of this age were able to reflect on both the content and processes of learning.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.052 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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