MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1839111653 · doi:10.18438/b8ck69

An Emerging Theory for Evidence Based Information Literacy Instruction in School Libraries, Part 2: Building a Culture of Enquiry

2009· article· en· W1839111653 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carol A. Gordon

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDigital Storytelling and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation literacyCurriculumComputer scienceExplicationAction researchMathematics educationConstructivism (international relations)Library instructionSchool libraryLearning theoryPedagogyKnowledge managementSociologyPsychologyEpistemologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective – The purpose of this paper is to articulate a theory for the use of action research as a tool of evidence based practice for information literacy instruction in school libraries. The emerging theory is intended to capture the complex phenomenon of information skills teaching as it is embedded in school curricula. Such a theory is needed to support research on the integrated approach to teaching information skills and knowledge construction within the framework of inquiry learning. Part 1 of this paper, in the previous issue, built a foundation for emerging theory, which established user-centric information behavior and constructivist learning theory as the substantive theory behind evidence based library instruction in schools. Part 2 continues to build on the Information Search Process and Guided Inquiry as foundational to studying the information-to-knowledge connection and the concepts of help and intervention characteristic of 21st century school library instruction. Methods – This paper examines the purpose and methodology of action research as a tool of evidence based instruction. This is accomplished through the explication of three components of theory-building: paradigm, substantive research, and metatheory. Evidence based practice is identified as the paradigm that contributes values and assumptions about school library instruction. It establishes the role of evidence in teaching and learning, linking theory and practice. Action research, as a tool of evidence based practice is defined as the synthesis of authentic learning, or performance-based assessment practices that continuously generate evidence throughout the inquiry unit of instruction and traditional data collection methods typically used in formal research. This paper adds social psychology theory from Lewin’s work, which contributes methodology from Gestalt psychology, field theory, group dynamics, and change theory. For Lewin the purpose of action research was social reform, while action research in education targeted self through the improvement of practice. The dichotomy between purposes of self and society is resolved by the Lewin-Dewey connection, where the reiterative cycle of action and reflection is the basis for a common intent for both types of action research. Dewey’s approach comprises the metatheory for emerging theory: a philosophy of purpose and methodology that determines how the research is done. Results – The emerging theory developed in this paper postulates that evidence based information literacy instruction uses action research for two purposes. Self-oriented action research (AR(S1)) targets self-improvement on the local level of teaching and learning in school libraries; social-oriented action research (AR(S2)) targets social reform on the global level of educational improvement. Corollaries of the theory indicate a research agenda and methodologies for the research. Conclusion – Implicit in the content of the research is methodology that evolves from the distinction between the purposes of self- and social-oriented action research. Clearly, evidence is generated in the field of teaching and learning that is situated in theory-based practices, such as user-centered information processing, constructivist learning, and a culture of inquiry that grows from social processes. Librarianship is well suited to developing practitioner-researchers who are proficient in making the information-to-knowledge connection that informs their professional performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.095
Scholarly communication0.0210.030
Open science0.0040.012
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicDigital Storytelling and EducationFrench-language works237,207