Other Ways of Knowing: How School Librarians Can Take a Leadership Role in Addressing Multi-literacies Across the Curriculum in the School Library
Bibliographic record
Abstract
School librarians have a unique, unprecedented, and unparalleled opportunity to affirm their role in students’ use of basic literacy skills – reading and writing – while highlighting their relatively new role, guiding students through the acquisition of information through multiple modes of communication with new technologies. School librarians can create and facilitate opportunities for students to enhance their learning and become multiliterate. These learning opportunities and a focus on “core” literacies shed a much needed spotlight on the important role and influence of the school librarian on overall academic achievement and the acquisition of multiliteracy skills that have become a necessity in a changing technological and global environment. This article isbased on a presentation given at the International Association of School Librarians Conference in Doha, Qatar (2012), the goals of which were to share an overview of the multiliteracies concept, suggest strategies for facilitating literacy in the school library and classroom, and share professional resources for continued learning and the integration of multiliteracies across the curriculum.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".