Librarian Use of the Knowledge Practices and Dispositions in the ACRL Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This poster details the findings of an investigation of US academic instruction librarians’ use of the knowledge practices and dispositions in the Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education from the Association of College and Research Libraries (2016). The Framework is a departure from the previous set of standards, but is often critiqued for being too theoretical and therefore not relevant to practice. In order to investigate the extent to which academic librarians use this theoretically-grounded document in practice, a questionnaire and interview study was conducted. This questionnaire explored librarian preparation in library science and education; familiarity with the frames, knowledge practices, and dispositions; examples of how, if at all, the knowledge practices and dispositions are implemented in information literacy instruction; and barriers with implementing the Framework. Follow up interviews investigated more deeply how various parts of the Framework were implemented in librarians’ daily work. L'usage par les bibliothécaires des pratiques de connaissances et dispositions dans le référentiel de l’ACRL RésuméCette affiche détaille les résultats d’une enquête sur les bibliothécaires universitaires aux États-Unis quant à leur utilisation des pratiques de connaissances et des dispositions dans le Référentiel de l’Association of College and Research Libraries (2016). Le Référentiel s’éloigne de l’ensemble des normes antérieures, mais est souvent critiqué pour être trop théorique et par conséquent, n’étant pas pertinent dans la pratique. Dans le but de déterminer dans quelle mesure les bibliothécaires universitaires utilisent ce document fondé sur la théorie dans la pratique, un questionnaire et une entrevue ont été mis en place. Ce questionnaire explore la formation des bibliothécaires dans le domaine de la bibliothéconomie et de l’éducation; leur familiarité avec ces cadres de référence, leurs mises en pratiques de connaissances, ainsi que les dispositions; des exemples de la façon dont, le cas échéant, les pratiques de connaissances et les dispositions sont implantées dans l’enseignement de la maîtrise de l’information; et les obstacles dans l’implantation de ce cadre de référence. Les entrevues de suivi ont permis d’analyser en profondeur la façon dont les divers éléments du cadre sont mis en œuvre dans le travail quotidien des bibliothécaires. Mots-clésMaîtrise de l’information; pratiques de l’information; analyse de contenus quantitatif
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 | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".