Discipline as Context: Arts and Science Students' Views on Key Concepts in the <scp>ACRL</scp><i>Framework</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The introduction of the Association of College and Research Libraries' (ACRL, 2016) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education , or “the Framework,” has fostered efforts to apply the document's concepts to information literacy instruction (ILI) to meet the needs of post‐secondary students across faculties. However, little research has directly compared students' perspectives on the Framework's concepts by discipline. This poster presents findings from a larger, mixed‐methods project investigating student perspectives on the Framework in which participants in the faculties of arts ( n = 123) and science ( n = 90) expressed distinct views and rankings. Their perspectives particularly diverged around perceived roles in assessing the authority of information sources and how “relevant to their experience in school” they found most Framework frames. This project expands upon emerging learner‐centered research aiming to meaningfully improve Framework‐based ILI through its direct disciplinary comparisons and use of the recently developed Information Literacy Reflection Tool (ILRT; Robertson et al., 2022).
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".