“It’s like stickers in your brain”: Using the Guided Inquiry Process to Support Lifelong Learning Skills in an Australian School Library
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Guided Inquiry Design process (GID) is a model of information seeking behaviour emphasising elements of autonomy and reflection throughout students’ research process and based on Kuhlthau’s (1989a; 2004) Information Search Process (ISP). GID is timely in the Australian context as a way to support the new Australian curriculum emphasising inquiry learning but omitting a practical framework for implementing it. This study sought to investigate the experience of students engaged in two GI research projects in Year 7 History and Geography at an independent girls’ school in an Australian urban area. Analysis of the data indicates rich and diverse interpretations of the GID process across participants. Freddo’s comment “It’s like stickers in your brain,” the title of this paper, highlights the memorability of the stages of the GI process. The girls also noted rewarding responses through their learning of the content and skills and “had fun” in this project.
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 | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".