Students May Demonstrate Information Literacy Skills Following Library Instruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Review of:
 Luetkenhaus, H., Hvizdak, E., Johnson, C., & Schiller, N. (2017). Measuring library impacts through first year course assessment. Communications in Information Literacy, 11(2), 339-353. http://comminfolit.org/index.php
 Abstract
 Objective – To determine whether there is a correlation between information literacy skill development and participation in one or more library instruction sessions.
 Design – Learning outcomes assessment.
 Setting – A public research institution with multiple campuses.
 Subjects – 244 first-year undergraduates enrolled in a compulsory general education course during the 2014-2015 academic year. All subjects completed a series of library research assignments, followed by a final research paper. 65% of subjects participated in at least one library instruction session as part of the course, and 35% did not.
 Methods – The researchers convened six librarians and six instructors/faculty to score 244 research papers using a rubric designed to measure six possible information literacy learning outcomes. Evaluators established inter-rater reliability through a norming session, and each artifact was scored twice. The authors analyzed rubric scores using Ordinary Least Squares regression modeling.
 Main Results – Participation in a library instruction session correlated with higher rubric scores in three information literacy learning outcomes: argument building; source type integration; and ethical source citation.
 Conclusion – Students may achieve greater information literacy learning outcomes when they participate in course-integrated library instruction.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.924 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".