MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134826808 · doi:10.29173/iasl7884

Building Information Literacy: An Action Research Approach

2021· article· en· W3134826808 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Helen Schutz, Alison Pick, Gina Knox

Bibliographic record

VenueIASL Annual Conference Proceedings · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation literacyAction researchAction (physics)Value (mathematics)LiteracyWork (physics)Mathematics educationPsychologyPedagogyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper argues that action research at a micro level is a valuable tool that can be used by the teacher-librarian to improve student learning outcomes in information literacy. It investigates ways to assess both students’ current level of achievement in information skills and also the effectiveness of teaching strategies used by the teacher-librarian. It will outline the work of three experienced teacher-librarians from Sydney schools. The issue of the value of action research will be discussed. Observations will be offered in terms of the possibilities of action research as a catalyst for professional learning and enhancing student learning outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.284
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.015
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIASL Annual Conference ProceedingsSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207