Information literacy in United Kingdom schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews the evolution of information skills and information literacy (IL) work and associated research in UK schools over the past thirty years as reflected in the literature. A brief report is then offered of a recent small study of library-based IL work in primary schools in England, conducted by one of the authors, using structured focus groups of teachers and library assistants and telephone interviews with headteachers. The remainder of the paper reports on the IL aspects of the first major surveys of UK post-primary school libraries and what librarians do for more than twenty years. It draws on an activity survey of library staff in 1,044 schools in the UK, conducted through a combination of peer interviews with an e-survey, across a range of post-primary schools. A set of questions was asked about the preferred term used in the school for IL, the extent of learning support by library staff, and the distribution of IL efforts across student years. These replies were then compared with responses about management supervision and about librarian-generated planning to show that these are both influencing factors in IL work. Further questions were asked about the types of IL work undertaken by library staff – from supporting IL efforts of teachers to conducting lessons in the library or classroom and preparing guidance for students. Respondents then identified the phases of the IL cycle on which they concentrated their efforts and the main activities which they engaged in when collaborating with teachers. In presenting the results, comparisons are made between replies from professionally-qualified librarians and other categories of respondent. Three approaches to IL intervention in schools are then presented, drawing upon activity descriptions contributed by survey respondents (including those interviewed). These are characterised as: •Sporadic opportunism; •Systematic development; •Strategic orchestration. A brief comment is made on the limitations of the survey and some conclusions are offered, relating to the growing gap between ‘the best and the rest’, the implications of declining school library budgets at all levels, and the difference that a professionally-qualified school librarian can make to IL work in the school. A possible way forward is offered for schools seeking to develop their IL work.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".