Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although it is widely believed that information literacy (IL) competencies are useful in helping students perform better in their schoolwork and beyond, limited empirical evidence is available showing the relationship between IL competencies and IL education. While a lot of research has been done worldwide and most of the findings have proven that IL is a much-needed skill by students, little research has been conducted on IL teaching approaches or what is termed IL pedagogy. To date, studies on IL have mainly focused only on students’ information skills per se, on library skills or on ICT education. None of these studies has assessed the different approaches to IL education. This paper provides an overview of a research study that investigates the impact of an IL teaching approach in the form of personalised coaching, which is grounded in the pedagogy known as mediated learning, on students’ level and applicability of IL competencies. Through the application of a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest control-group design, as well as student responses in the post-experiment semi-structured group interviews, it was found that personalised coaching (or mediated learning) helps students perform better in the learning and application of IL competencies.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".