Teacher librarians, technology, and collaborative connections: A case study of teacher librarians from a communities of practice perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of teacher librarians is changing in an era increasingly influenced by information and communication technology ( 1 0 . The goal of this study was to document and analyze the work of teacher librarians and how it contributes to the delivery of educational programs. The work of a group of six teacher librarians was examined as an example of a community of practice. Email messages, field notes, and artifacts representing the work of these teacher librarians were collected over five months. Data were analyzed using codes developed from Wenger's community of practice research, and conversation analysis. The research questions considered whether the teacher librarians constituted a community of practice, the nature of that practice, and how this practice correlated with the delivery of instructional programs. It is argued from the findings how the notion of a community of practice may be helpful in reconceptualizing the nature and role of teacher librarianshp.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".