Iranian Public Libraries Can Improve Self-Efficacy in Information Literacy, Especially When School Library Instruction Is Not Preparing Students for Lifelong Learning Readiness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Review of: Leili, S., Maryam, H., & Mohsen, A. (2020). The effect of information literacy instruction on lifelong learning readiness. IFLA Journal, 46(3), 259-270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035220931879 Abstract Objective – To examine the efficacy of information literacy skills instruction on the lifelong learning readiness skills of Iranian public library users. Design – Pre- and post-test experiment. Setting – Two public libraries in Iran. Subjects – Thirty (30) high school students who were active users of two Iranian public libraries. Methods – Thirty (30) participants were randomized into two groups, one of which received information literacy training for seven weeks, while the other group acted as a control. Participants were assessed via three instruments in information literacy and readiness for lifelong learning prior to and at the completion of the training program. The workshops included basic library skills, recognizing needed information skills, information source skills, Internet skills, Internet searching skills, resource instruction, database skills, and general searching skills. Results of pre- and post-test assessments were analyzed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Main Results – The group that received information literacy instruction showed increased readiness for self-directed learning, readiness to overcome deterrents to participation, and improved information literacy. The control group did not show an increase in readiness to respond to triggers for learning or an overall increase in lifelong learning readiness. Conclusion – Information literacy instruction can improve elements of lifelong learning readiness in regular library users. Public libraries in Iran should begin long-term planning to implement this training.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".