Primary School Children's Interaction with Library Media: Information Literacy in Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of a study of professional development in relation to information literacy, children at four primary schools were observed as they worked with a variety of media in various curriculum areas. The challenges they encountered are discussed against the bund of the teachers' understanding of information skills and resource-based learning.1 Educators and librarians have acknowledged that the skills that constitute information literacy are becoming crucial to everyday life. However, it is suggested by some that students in general are not being equipped to meet those demands in the 1 990s any better than they were in the 1980s. For example, since 1981, when Marland published Information skills in the secondary curriculum, there have been many initiatives to develop and promote the teaching of information skills in schools. Much of the widely disseminated research prompted by that report and reviewed by Rogers (1994), confirms that the original working party recommendations remain relevant today. Indeed, Rogers quotes extracts from British government reports which suggest the overall picture in schools has not changed significantly at all. The fact is that library and study skills have been taught in schools for nearly a hundred years, but many students still cannot easily find and critically use information. In some schools, information literacy is enhancing teaching and learning, but the information age has yet to reach others. Information technology and pressures on library resources and services can, in this context, be seen as a catalyst for critically examining teaching techniques necessary for fostering information literacy. Poor performance in finding and using information has in the past been attributed to a lack of explicit classroom attention to the cognitive aspects of the task (e.g. Irving, 1985; Kuhlthau, 1987). Yet the thinking underlying information literacy may be hidden from teachers and few studies illuminate process issues from the viewpoint of the students themselves. Further, whereas twenty years ago we focused on getting our most able students to think critically and do "research projects" at school, we now face the challenge of helping our least able students to solve information problems efficiently. Consequently three factors are of central concern in developing information literacy. One is the nature of information literacy itself, the second is teachers' understanding of that concept and the third relates to the conceptions of inexperienced information users.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".