Low Levels of Teacher Information Literacy Awareness and Collaboration Between Librarians and Teachers in Information Literacy Instruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Review of: McKeever, C., Bates, J., & Reilly, J. (2017). School library staff perspectives on teacher information literacy and collaboration. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(2), 51-68. https://doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187 Abstract Objective – Researchers sought to determine school library staff perspectives on the information literacy knowledge held by secondary school teachers, and teacher relationships with the library. Design – Interviews analyzed with thematic and axial coding. Setting – Secondary schools in Northern Ireland. Subjects – 21 schools across Northern Ireland were selected as a sample, including urban, rural, integrated, grammar, and secondary schools. 16 schools ultimately participated. Methods – Semi-structured interviews were conducted with one library staff member at each selected secondary school. Interview audio and notes were transcribed and coded thematically both manually by the researchers and using NVivo. Categories were identified by open coding, then relationships identified via axial coding. Main Results – The majority (10 of 16) of library staff members interviewed expressed that they had not been asked about information literacy by teachers, and only one library staff member described a truly collaborative instructional relationship with teaching staff. The majority of staff expressed either that teachers were familiar with concepts related to information literacy but did not know the name for them, or, that they thought information literacy was entirely unfamiliar to teachers at their school. Staff frequently cited competing priorities (for example, standardized testing) and limited class time as potential causes for teachers not focusing on information literacy concepts. Conclusion – Both cultural and policy changes need to be made in schools to prioritize information literacy as a core competency for both students and teachers. The researchers call for greater intra-school collaboration as a means to achieve this cultural change.
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 | 0.012 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".