First-Year Students’ Understanding of Research and Their Information Literacy Skills Change Over Time and in Four Different Ways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Review of:
 Kirker, M. J., & Stonebraker, I. (2019). Architects, renovators, builders and fragmenters: A model for first year students’ self-perceptions and perceptions of information literacy. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.10.009
 Abstract
 Objective – To explore students’ perceptions of their information literacy skills and how these change during the first-year experience.
 Design – A longitudinal qualitative study using cognitive dissonance theory.
 Setting – Two large public universities in the United States of America.
 Subjects – Students enrolled in research methods and information literacy-based courses in their first semester.
 Methods – Students were required to submit two written self-reflections as part of their course; the first was completed in the first two weeks of the semester and the second at the end of the semester. Informed consent was obtained for all reflections used for the study. The authors selected 12 students (6 from each institution) to participate in semi-structured interviews at the end of their first year. A total of 178 self-reflections were included in the analysis.
 Main Results – The study found that students’ understanding of research changed during the first-year experience, and that students had four main journeys related to their information literacy skills and perceptions. Instances of cognitive dissonance were observed. Students can consider themselves both good and bad researchers at the same time. The study also revealed the research process as an emotional labour, not just an intellectual one.
 Conclusion – The study concluded that a shared understanding of “research” between librarians and students is needed in order to teach information literacy effectively. It is also important to recognise that students transform their information literacy over time (not just from a single class or program) and that teaching needs to meet students where they are on their journey, depending on their “developmental paths.”
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.586 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".