Towards a Definition of Multilingual Information Literacy (MLIL): An Essential Skill for the 21st Century
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on an exploratory study that examined bilingual/multilingual university students’ perspectives on how language affects their information searching and use. The study also examined instruction librarians’ perspectives on information literacy instruction in general and their approaches in providing information literacy instruction to international students and English as a Second Language (ESL) students. A qualitative research approach using focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews was used in the study. Nineteen (19) international and ESL students participated in the discussions while 8 instruction librarians were interviewed. Fifty-six (56%) of the students were aware of information literacy instruction as a service that was offered by the University library but only 37% had used this service. Only one of the librarians had had a significant encounter where language issues closely intersected with information literacy instruction. This study makes a connection between language and information literacy and reports on perspectives from both librarians and students’ point of view. While proposing a possible working definition of Multilingual Information Literacy (MLIL), the study makes the case for MLIL as a necessary skill for the twenty-first century. The study also proposes ways in which Library and Information Science (LIS) professionals could be involved in promoting and enhancing multilingual information literacy and further suggests Specialized Information Literacy Instruction (SILI) and Personalized Information Literacy Instruction (PILI) as suitable models for providing instruction to Limited English Proficient (LEP) 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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it