Information literacy as a social practice: A threshold concept for academic instruction librarians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. This poster presents research from a dissertation study that was the second phase of a two-phase study. The first phase of the study found that viewing information literacy as a social practice was a threshold concept for academic instruction librarians in the United States. This study builds on that finding by examining how the threshold concept describes the experiences of currently practicing academic instruction librarians. This poster will show the original threshold concept, the revised threshold concept and describe how academic librarians taught from a social practice perspective. Methods. Focus groups and semi structured diary entries were used to collect data from nine academic instruction librarians in the United States and Canada. Focus groups were held in September and December, 2021. Diary entries were collected weekly between the two sets of focus groups. Analysis. Qualitative content analysis was performed using Atlas.ti version 22 and Excel. Results. The original model was adjusted with the addition of supports that can help academic instruction librarians confront and avoid tensions that push them towards teaching skills out of context. Conclusion. The adjusted model was decided to be an accurate representation of participants’ experiences.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".