Journal of Information Literacy

ISSN 1750-5968

Volume 11 Issue 2
December 2017

Article
McKeever, C., Bates, J. and Reilly, J. 2017. School library staff perspectives on
teacher information literacy and collaboration. Journal of Information Literacy,
11(2), pp.51–68.
http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Copyright for the article content resides with the authors, and copyright for the publication layout
resides with the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals, Information Literacy
Group. These Copyright holders have agreed that this article should be available on Open Access
and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike licence.

"By ‘open access’ to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to
read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for
indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or
technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint
on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors
control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.”

Chan, L. et al. 2002. Budapest Open Access Initiative. New York: Open Society Institute. Available at:
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml [Accessed: 18 November 2015].
School library staff perspectives on teacher information
literacy and collaboration
Dr. Christine McKeever, PhD Graduate, School of Education, Ulster University.
Email: christinemckeever@hotmail.com Twitter: @ChristineVedder
Dr. Jessica Bates, Course Director, Library and Information Management, School of
Education, Ulster University. Email: j.bates@ulster.ac.uk Twitter: @Jessica_Bates
Dr. Jacqueline Reilly, Head of the Doctoral College (Belfast/ Jordanstown), Ulster
University. Email: j.reilly@ulster.ac.uk Twitter: @JackieReillyDC

Abstract
Pupils need to develop information literacy (IL) skills in schools in order to be active members of a
skilled workforce, for lifelong learning and digital citizenship. However, there has been little focus
on the extent to which this happens in a classroom setting and on information competencies of
teachers. As part of a broader study of teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of IL, librarians in
schools in Northern Ireland were interviewed. Findings reveal low levels of collaboration with
teachers. Recommendations are made regarding how to overcome challenges involved in
developing teachers’ IL so that they can better support learners.

Keywords
information literacy; Northern Ireland; school librarians; school libraries; teachers; teacher–librarian
collaboration

1. Introduction
The term Information Literacy (IL) is one that may be unfamiliar to many teaching professionals as
it is more often associated with and used by those in the field of Library and Information Science.
Since the term ‘IL’ was first used in the 1970s, library and information professionals have been
interested in the concept, and have further defined it over the years. Zurkowski (1974, p.6)
described an information literate person as ‘someone who had learned the skills and techniques
required for utilising the wide range of information tools available’. In the 1980s, Kuhlthau (1987)
defined IL as a combination of traditional literacy skills and computer skills. Definitions have since
evolved to include more references to technology as advancements have been made and
information has become more available through a wide variety of resources, and many also now
refer to the experience of the individual. In 2004, The Chartered Institute for Library and
Information Professionals (CILIP) approved the following definition: ‘IL is knowing when and why
you need information, where to find it, and how to evaluate, use and communicate it in an ethical
manner’ (CILIP, 2011). Although many definitions now exist, they all revolve around the same
ideas of being able to access, use and communicate information effectively.

IL has an increasingly significant presence in the school library sector. As Herring (2011, p.2)
stated: ‘IL skills should be part of each student’s learning and the focus in schools should be on
how students can use IL skills to enhance their learning’. Promoting and developing these skills is
essential in modern knowledge-based societies. With so much information available at our

McKeever et al. 2017. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187 51
fingertips through smartphones, tablets and laptops, students need to have the skills to enable
them to access, use, understand and share this information. Developing these IL skills in pupils will
not only benefit them throughout their education, they will be able to use them in their everyday life
and in the workplace (Smith, 2003; Reed & Stavreva, 2006; Klebanksy & Fraser, 2013; Kimmel et
al., 2014). A pre-requisite for pupils to develop effective IL skills is strong teacher competencies
with regard to information handling (Laverty et al., 2008). However, where research has been
undertaken in a school context, teachers have been found to lack confidence and skills to
efficiently retrieve and evaluate information as part of their professional research and practice
(Williams & Coles, 2007). There has been no study to date on the IL skills of teachers in Northern
Ireland (NI).

This research builds on a previous study on the IL skills of Sixth Form school leaving students1
(McKeever, 2012), which included interviews with three teachers. Findings indicated that
participants did not fully understand the concept of IL, they lacked time in the classroom to teach
the associated skills and they assumed others were teaching these skills. This highlighted a need
for further research in the area of teachers’ IL. Pupils cannot be expected to develop these skills if
their teachers lack knowledge and awareness of IL and are not teaching IL skills or embedding
them within classroom practices.

Doyle (1999, p.23) proposes that ‘Teachers are the most critical key to student attainment of
IL…They must become information literate themselves’. Ideally there would be a whole school
approach to the development of pupils’ IL skills (Williams & Wavell, 2006; Church, 2008), which
should not be the responsibility of the school librarian alone (Johnson, 1999). Rather, teachers and
librarians should support one another in providing instruction and the school principal should
encourage this collaborative approach, whereby what is taught in the classroom could be
complemented and reinforced in the library (and vice versa). Writing about the university context,
Floyd et al. (2008) state that ‘Information education … at its best, is a collaborative effort between
librarians and faculty’ (p.368).

The context of the school library and the role of school librarians in the UK and in NI must be
considered. In their report ‘The Beating Heart of the School’, the Libraries All Party Parliamentary
Group (LAPPG) called for every child in the UK to have access to a good school library (LAPPG,
2014). There is, however, no statutory requirement for school libraries or professional school
librarians in the UK or NI, although in NI there is a requirement for a school library service (LAPPG,
p.7).2 Due to this lack of requirement and limited funding, the majority of school library staff
members in NI are employed as library assistants, rather than as professional school librarians. In
a NI context, the most recent statistics available indicate that in 2002, there were just 29
professional librarians working in NI schools, which translates to 12% of the total number of school
library posts (Starrs, 2002, p.46). The most recent statistics on the number of school libraries or
school librarians in the UK show that 58.7% of school libraries are run by a professionally-qualified
school librarian (CILIP, 2010). Of the librarians who participated in this research, four of the sixteen
were employed in professional posts.

The current research was conducted as part of a wider study, which included a survey of teachers,
interviews with teacher educators, and interviews with school librarians and sought to explore the
following research questions:

 How much do secondary school teachers know about IL and how information literate are
they?

1
In Northern Ireland children enter secondary school in Year 8 at age 11. Sixth Form consists of two year groups –
Year 13 and Year 14. In this article ‘Sixth Form’ or ‘school leaving students’ refers to students aged 16–18 who are in
their final two years of secondary school.
2
The School Library Service in Northern Ireland provides support for school libraries in the form of resources, loan
collections, project packs and reading group materials. Members of staff can help advise school librarians on selecting
appropriate materials for children and young adults and can also provide more general information on current trends
in children’s and young adult literature. The School Library Service also provides resources for teachers.
McKeever et al. 2017. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(2)
http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187 52
  How strong a presence does IL have in initial teacher education courses in NI?
 What do teachers think about IL in the curriculum?
 Are teachers teaching IL skills?

This paper focuses on the first question from the perspective of school library staff, as they were
able to provide insight into teacher–school librarian relationships and the extent to which teachers
engage with the school library in relation to IL.

2. Literature review
The importance of IL in schools has been the topic of many research studies over the past three
decades (Griffin, 1981; Hopkins, 1987; Herring, 1996; Williams & Wavell, 2001; Williams & Coles,
2003; Jackson & Mogg, 2005). In response to a 1983 report which found that American education
standards were falling, the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science in the
United States produced a paper which defined information skills and identified problems with their
development. In this paper, Mancall et al. (1986, p.20) state ‘Information management skills
instruction is essential if students are to exert control over school-related and lifetime information
needs’. As a result of this and similar articles, IL standards were developed for pupils (in schools)
in the US.

In a UK context, little has been done to develop IL as a feature of teaching and learning in schools,
despite the work of school librarians over the past 30 years. Streatfield et al. (2011, p.6) note that
although school librarians have been working on these skills ‘this work has never been
consolidated at a level that made it a consistent feature of teaching and learning in schools’.

The majority of research on IL has been conducted in the higher education sector. Prominent
trends in this research have included the teaching of IL skills and their incorporation into the
curriculum, particularly at university level (Rader, 2002, p.1). The smaller number of studies carried
out in schools has tended to focus on the information search process (Kuhlthau, 1991; Moore and
St George, 1991), the development of models of IL (Herring, 1996) and the skills of students
(Fitzgerald, 2004; Latham & Gross, 2007). The topic of the IL skills of teachers has been the
subject of less frequently researched studies.

A review of the few studies that have explored the IL skills of teachers reveals conflicting evidence
on the topic. Some found teachers to be aware of the concept and to possess the associated skills
but to be unsure of how to teach pupils these skills; Moore (2002) suggested that teachers were
aware of the importance of IL but unsure of how to promote it in the classroom. Merchant and
Hepworth (2002) noted that the teachers who participated in their study were information literate
but that this was down to personal interest rather than any training they had received and they
were not transferring these skills to their pupils. Probert (2009) found that some teachers had good
understandings of the concept but tended to associate it with other kinds of literacies such as
reading or computer literacy, that few teachers reported doing anything to help develop their pupils’
information skills and assumed they already had good skills. Others have reported that teachers
have little understanding of IL and are therefore unable to teach the associated skills. Williams and
Coles (2007) found that teachers thought of IL as a relatively new concept and that they lacked the
confidence to teach these skills. Korobili et al. (2011) reported that the concept was ‘still unknown’
amongst teachers and that the teachers in their study were providing IL skills instruction but were
doing so poorly. Smith (2013) found that teachers were insufficiently prepared to teach IL skills and
were confused by the term. A common feature of this literature is that regardless of whether
teachers possess knowledge and understanding of the concept or not, they are not providing
effective IL skills instruction. It is necessary to note that the majority of the existing research on
teachers and IL has been conducted from a library and information perspective and therefore
focuses on the views of those from this sector. The few examples of research from outside of the
LIS sector have reported similar findings (Asselin & Lee, 2002; Lee et al., 2012).

McKeever et al. 2017. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187 53
A considerable amount of research has been conducted on teacher–librarian collaboration and
there are several studies demonstrating positive effects on learning and instruction. Kuhlthau has
conducted several studies (1994, 1997, 2003, 2007) exploring how teachers and librarians can
work together to guide pupils’ learning. Kuhlthau et al. (2007, pp.53–55) recommended that
students should be guided by a team consisting of two teachers and a school librarian when they
are working on enquiry based projects and noted the benefits of this kind of collaboration – the
merging of the subject knowledge of the teachers and the IL skills of the librarian. Others have
noted the positive impact of teacher–librarian collaboration (for example, Chu et al., 2011), but it
has also been acknowledged that there can be significant challenges to inter-professional
collaboration (Latham et al., 2016).

However these studies tend to be published in Library and Information Science literature and are
therefore not widely disseminated or readily accessible to teachers, which may go some way to
explaining why school librarians still seem to struggle to form collaborative partnerships with
teaching colleagues. Mokhtar and Majid (2006) emphasised that this kind of collaborative
relationship is necessary and beneficial to both the teachers and librarians, resulting in shared
knowledge and expertise and synergies between what is done in the classroom and in the library,
which in turn could increase use of the library. Their findings indicated very low levels of
collaboration, with 72.3% of teachers saying that they had never collaborated with their school
librarian. The majority of teachers did not consider their librarian to be a collaborative partner, with
75.0% saying their own resources were adequate, and 39.1% saying they thought their librarian
was not sufficiently qualified. This study also found that 56.3% of teachers said they were too busy
to collaborate, or that collaboration took up too much time.

Davies (2012) researched teacher–librarian collaboration in NI, finding that the majority of the
school librarians were involved in what she described as ‘lower end types’ of collaboration,
referring to Montiel-Overall’s (2005) models of collaboration (these models are described in section
3). Davies surveyed 199 school library staff members and received 115 responses. Many of the
participating school library staff were coordinating with their teaching colleagues by communicating
informally and by organising events, with an even larger proportion co-operating by preparing
resources for teaching colleagues. Davies identified lack of time and motivation among teachers as
the main barriers to teacher–librarian collaboration, as well as the status of the librarian. Many
participating librarians reported that they were considered as someone who simply looked after the
library, rather than as a collaborative partner. Other barriers to teacher collaboration are
highlighted by Carpenter and Linton (2016).

Mertes (2014) focused on teacher–librarian collaboration in relation to IL instruction specifically in

the US and concluded that teaching IL skills is a highly complex task. She interviewed four school
administrators and a head librarian, held a focus group with a group of six students, surveyed 30
teachers and interviewed 11 teachers. The findings indicated that teachers considered IL to be
important, but that more effective collaboration was required for the instruction to be fully effective.
Mertes noted that three quarters of teachers reported collaborating with their school librarians,
although the levels of collaboration were not described, and that the majority of teachers were
teaching IL implicitly. She noted the differences between experiences of IL in the classroom and in
a library setting and recommended that school librarians consider the complex nature of providing
IL skills instruction and recommended they communicate with teaching colleagues in order to
develop a shared understanding of the concept and plan various aspects of this kind of instruction
collaboratively (pp.172–177).

Collaboration with librarians and highly developed IL skills have been found to have a positive
effect on teacher practice. Van Ingren and Ariew (2015) highlighted the importance of IL skills for
teachers for their professional practice, particularly research based practice. Based on the work of
Floyd et al. (2008), who designed a collaborative workshop for faculty and academic librarians
which focused on helping preservice teachers to access high quality resources, Van Ingren and
Ariew aimed to further develop this idea. They found that such collaborative workshops benefit
preservice teachers and that they needed this kind of help when attempting to research a topic but
that the workshops also served to introduce the idea of connecting research to teaching practice.

McKeever et al. 2017. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187 54
The work of the Scottish IL Group merits consideration, as it led to the development of an IL
framework at governmental level and a national strategy. In response to the growing problem of
students’ lack of IL skills, Crawford, Irving and others worked to create a national framework and
successfully petitioned for the more prominent inclusion of IL skills on the national curriculum in
Scotland (Irving, 2011). Similar work has been carried out in Wales, which now also has a national
IL framework in place (Head & Jackson, 2011). Frameworks such as these can be used by
teachers both to assess the IL skills of their pupils and as a basis for IL skills instruction.

Overall the literature demonstrates that although there may be inconsistent research evidence on
teachers’ understandings of IL and individual levels of IL skills, there is nevertheless consistent
evidence that teachers are not teaching these skills effectively. Moreover, despite research
indicating that IL skills instruction and teacher collaboration with librarians have a positive impact
on both pupil learning and professional practice, librarians are still struggling to be accepted by
teachers as collaborative partners in education.

3. The theory of teacher–librarian collaboration

The benefits of collaboration on pedagogy, overall practice and student achievement have been
documented in the existing literature (Lance, 2002; Wolf, 2004; Montiel-Overall, 2005; Kuhlthau et
al., 2007). Shrage (1990, p.40) defined collaboration as ‘the process of shared creation: two or
more individuals with complementary skills interacting to create a shared understanding that none
had previously possessed or could have come to on their own’. Referring specifically to
collaboration between teachers and librarians, Russell (2002, p.36) noted that ‘The teacher brings
to the partnership knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the students and of the content
to be taught. The (librarian) adds a thorough understanding of information skills and methods and
how to integrate them’.

This is consistent with constructivist learning theories, which propose the idea that knowledge and
skills cannot be directly transferred from the teacher to the student but that learning is dependent
on how information is experienced and understood (Terwel, 1999; Palincsar, 1998). A
constructivist view of learning is applicable to teacher–librarian collaboration as partnership can
offer a different approach for teachers and school librarians and hence arguably a new, more
active, way of learning for students. By working together, teachers and school librarians can plan
the content and teaching of sessions which could enable them to bring their individual knowledge
and expertise to the process. By collaborating, these professionals would be taking a different,
integrated approach to the teaching and learning process and could potentially provide a new
learning experience for students (Fulton, 2003).

Montiel-Overall (2005) explored the theory behind teacher–librarian collaboration and created
models reflecting the various stages involved. Her first model is Model A: Coordination, defined as
‘a collaborative effort that requires low levels of involvement between teacher and librarian’ (p.35).
She explained that to coordinate means to organise and synchronise and noted that working
together in this way is common for teachers and librarians as they frequently do this when planning
events and activities for students.

The second model is Model B: Cooperation. This occurs when the two professionals work together
more closely and each teach their specialist area: ‘Teacher and librarian cooperate on lessons or
units of study by dividing tasks…goals and objectives are developed independently although joint
instruction may be involved’ (p.36).

Montiel-Overall’s third model is Model C: Integrated Instruction. This occurs when teachers and
librarians become involved with one another and more committed to what they are working on:
‘This model involves thinking together, planning together, and integrating innovative learning
opportunities that reflect teacher’s and librarian’s expertise in subject content and library science
curricula in order to improve students’ understanding of instruction’ (p.35).

McKeever et al. 2017. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187 55
The fourth model is Model D: Integrated Curriculum. This occurs when teachers and librarians
work together right across the curriculum. Montiel-Overall explained that this type of collaboration
would be characterised by both professionals meeting regularly ‘to integrate IL and content through
joint efforts that involve co-thinking, co-planning, co-implementation, and co-evaluation across the
curriculum’ (p.38). Finally, she emphasised the need for principal support and time to be devoted to
this kind of working partnership. This final model of collaboration is similar to what Head (2003,
p.50) describes as ‘deep collaboration’ or effective collaboration and contrasts to ‘functional
collaboration’. Similar to the behaviour described in Model D, Head noted that deep collaboration
occurs when individuals move beyond the more basic stages of working together and develop a
collective understanding and shared knowledge.

The theory supporting teacher–librarian collaboration suggests that when both professionals work
together in this way, the learning experience is enhanced for the student and teaching practice is
transformed (Kuhlthau et al., 2007). Montiel-Overall’s models demonstrate the different levels of
collaboration and what is required for a partnership to be considered as fully collaborative.

4. Research methods
As part of the larger study, sixteen school librarians from schools across NI were interviewed. This
study was conducted in line with the ethical principles outlined by the university and ethical
approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee, School of Education, Ulster
University. The purpose of these interviews was to obtain understanding of the perspective of
school librarians on teachers’ knowledge of IL. Insights into teachers’ use of the library, any IL
skills instruction provided by teachers or librarians and the nature of their own collaboration (if any)
with the teachers in their schools were also sought.

The sampling strategy was designed to ensure an inclusive rather than a representative sample as
post-primary schools from each of the different school sectors in NI were included. There are 210
post-primary schools in NI located within five Education and Library Board areas (these were
replaced by a single Education Authority in April 2015). Twenty-one schools reflecting each of the
school sectors in NI were selected across the Education and Library Board area; this included
different types of grammar, secondary and integrated schools.3

Table 1: Overview of school types included in the sample

School type/ Education North South

Belfast Western Southern
& Library Board Area Eastern Eastern
Maintained secondary 1 1 1 1

Controlled secondary 2 1 1
Controlled Grammar 1 1
Voluntary Grammar 1 1 1 1 1

Integrated 1 1 1 1 1
Irish Medium 1

3
There are six secondary school types in Northern Ireland. Controlled schools are managed by the Education Authority
and the school’s Board of Governors. Although originally Protestant schools, these schools are now for children of all
faiths or no faith (although pupils attending these schools still tend to be predominantly from Protestant
backgrounds). Voluntary Grammar schools are mainly Catholic schools and are run by the school’s Board of
Governors. Maintained schools are Catholic schools and The Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) is
responsible for them. There are also a number of Integrated Schools and Irish Medium schools.
McKeever et al. 2017. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(2)
http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187 56
Only schools with librarians or library assistants were included in the sample, as the focus of the
study was to explore the perspective of school library staff. Schools of various sizes and in urban
and rural settings were included but due to the geographical placement of schools in Northern
Ireland, there were more schools in urban than rural areas. Co-educational and single-sex schools
were also included. Of the schools contacted, three declined the invitation to participate in the
study and one did not respond. A set of alternative schools had been selected in advance to be
used in the event of refusal or non-response but eventually it was decided that saturation had been
achieved so interviewing stopped after interview sixteen.

The interviews took place in January and February 2015. Although referred to as school librarians,
not all of the interviewees were in professional posts or had a professional qualification. Five were
qualified librarians, three of whom were in professional posts. Of the sixteen, four were employed
as school librarians and twelve were employed as library assistants.4 One interviewee was in a
professional post despite not being qualified and had been promoted into this position on the basis
of experience. Three participants had been in post for between one and five years, seven had
been in post for six to nine years and six had worked in their current role for ten or more years.
Eight of the librarians had previous library experience prior to their current post and three had
previously worked as teachers. There were fourteen female and two male participants. The
profession is similarly female dominated. A CILIP survey indicated that the workforce composition
of UK Library and Information Professionals was 78.1% female and 21.9% male (CILIP, 2015).

Table 2: Overview of background/experience of school library staff members

Interviewee Years in post

details: 1–5 years 6–9 years >10 years
Gender Female: 3 Female: 6 Female: 5
Male: 0 Male: 1 Male: 1
Title of post School Librarian: 0 School Librarian: 1 School Librarian: 3
Library Assistant: 3 Library Assistant: 6 Library Assistant: 3
Qualified School Librarians: 0 School Librarians: 0 School Librarians: 3
Library Assistants: 0 Library Assistants: 1 Library Assistants: 1
Previous Yes: 1 Yes: 2 Yes: 5
experience No: 2 No: 5 No: 1

A copy of the semi-structured Interview Schedule can be found in the Appendix. Questions aimed
to elicit information on the views of school library staff members on teachers’ knowledge and
awareness of IL, teachers’ use of the library, if any IL skills instruction was taking place and the
extent of their collaboration with the teachers in their schools.

Data were analysed both manually and with the use of the computer software programme NVivo.
The participants’ responses were audio recorded and notes were taken during the interviews.
Immediately after each interview, initial notes were made on particular areas of interest and
possible emerging themes; this would later inform thematic coding. Data analysis began as soon
as the first interview was completed. The interviews were transcribed as soon as possible after
they took place; these transcriptions were examined individually, then collectively and they were
manually thematically coded at first. The manual thematic coding involved micro-analysis of the
responses provided by respondents and this consisted of a line-by-line examination of the data.
Categories were initially identified by open coding, and then links between the categories and sub-
categories were determined by axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Through further examination
of these categories and sub-categories, a number of themes and sub-themes emerged from the
data. Following manual coding, the data was then entered into the computer software package

4
In Northern Ireland ‘School Librarian’ is a professional post and ‘Library Assistant’ is a non-professional post.
McKeever et al. 2017. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(2)
http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187 57
NVivo; this helped manage and organise the large amount of data obtained from these interviews.
The software also further assisted with thematic coding as it allowed specific codes to be assigned
and searches to be performed. Transcriptions were examined several times during the data
analysis and this software was used as a way of checking no data was missed during the manual
coding of the data.

5. Findings
5.1 Understanding of IL and the provision of IL skills instruction
The librarians were asked questions which aimed to determine the extent of their own knowledge
of IL. Their knowledge and understanding of the concept was assessed by their ability to provide a
definition similar to the widely accepted CILIP (2011) definition. All but two of the interviewees had
a good working knowledge of IL; they were able to provide examples of when these skills would be
needed, and could describe examples of pupils in their schools demonstrating IL skills as well as
examples of pupils lacking IL skills. Both of the interviewees who had little or no knowledge of IL
were unqualified; one was a former teacher who had taken the role of library assistant a year
previously in a school where no one had been in charge of the library. The other interviewee had
held her position for almost eight years, and until recently had been managed by a teacher who
had responsibility for the library.

The librarians were then asked if they provided any IL skills instruction in their current role. Two
categories of instruction were identified in the data; explicit instruction was that which was clearly
identified and presented as IL instruction while implicit instruction was whenever skills associated
with the concept were covered but were not identified as being IL skills. Three quarters of the
sample reported that they provided implicit skills instruction and in every case this took place in the
form of skills being taught during library inductions with pupils who were new to the school. Only
two participants provided what was considered as explicit instruction; one held IL classes with sixth
form pupils and the other spent the first four weeks of term providing instruction to new Year 8
pupils. Two of the librarians reported that they provided no IL instruction. These participants were
unqualified, and had demonstrated little or no knowledge of the concept. Class visits to the library
in their schools were also entirely teacher led.

5.2 Collaboration with teachers

Three kinds of working relationship between the librarians and the teachers in their schools were
identified from the interview data; non-collaborative, semi-collaborative and collaborative. These
resemble three of Montiel-Overall’s (2005) models: Coordination, Cooperation and Integrated
Instruction.

The first kind of relationship identified from these data was classified as non-collaborative. Similar
to Montiel-Overall’s Coordination model (Model A), the librarians described working with teachers
to organise and plan events in the library, for example, class visits where the instruction would be
provided independently by either the librarian or the teacher with no communication between them
relating to the content of the visits. Also included in this category were participants who described
their collaboration with their teaching colleagues as being restricted to providing resources or
performing basic practical library tasks, such as issuing books. Seven of the sixteen participants
described this kind of collaborative relationship with their teaching colleagues.

The second kind of relationship identified was classified as semi-collaborative, similar to Montiel-
Overall’s Cooperation model (Model B). Librarians who described working with their teaching
colleagues to plan some aspect of class visits, for example, the content and/or the delivery were
included in this category. Other features of this semi-collaborative working relationship included
sharing tasks during the class visit such as handing out worksheets and so on, but working on
tasks with pupils separately and providing instruction separately. This was considered as a mid-
range level of collaboration, given that it involved working together towards a joint goal. Eight of the
participants described this kind of relationship.

McKeever et al. 2017. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187 58
The third type of relationship identified was collaborative. This type is similar to Montiel-Overall’s
Integrated Instruction model (Model C). Librarians who described fully collaborating with their
teaching colleagues over the content and delivery of class visits and merging their knowledge and
areas of expertise to improve instruction were classified as being collaborative. Just one of the
sixteen participants described a relationship with teaching colleagues which could be classified as
fully collaborative, similar to Montiel-Overall’s Model D: Integrated Curriculum. This librarian
explained that she participated fully in the planning, design and delivery of class visits with the
Head of the English department and other English teachers, and noted also that IL skills are
included in the programme of class visits. This was the highest level of collaboration found
between librarians and teachers in this study. Just one participant described this kind of
relationship.

Table 3: Working relationships identified between school library staff members and teachers

Non-collaborative Semi-collaborative Collaborative

Features: Features: Features:

 the library staff member  the library staff member  the school library staff
and teacher organise and the teacher work member and the teacher
class visits to the library. together to plan the work together closely to
 instruction is provided by content and delivery of design the content of the
one or the other, never the class visit to the class visit to the library.
both. library.  they work together to
 there is no collaboration  the work is divided. deliver the session.
over content of sessions  each provides their own  they merge the teacher’s
in the library. instruction, this is not subject knowledge and
 resources are asked for done jointly. the librarian/library
and provided. assistant’s library and
 practical duties information management
performed. knowledge to design
activities which will reflect
both.

Similar to: Similar to: Similar to:

Montiel-Overall’s Model A: Montiel-Overall’s Model B: Montiel-Overall’s Model C:
Coordination Cooperation Integrated Instruction
Teachers and librarians Teachers and librarians work Teachers and librarians work
organise events and activities together on lessons and together to connect their
in the library. divide tasks. Each teaches separate areas of expertise
their area of specialisation. to improve the students’
understanding of instruction.

5.3 Feelings of exclusion and low status

Many participants reported feeling excluded by the teachers in their schools in various ways. Six of
the sample said that they thought if any of the teachers in their schools were doing anything in
terms of IL skills instruction, they were not including the librarian in this. One participant noted:
‘They (teachers) could be doing something in terms of IL instruction but if they are I am not a part
of it.’ Another said: ‘They maybe are providing guidance on how to research online or something
but I am not a part of it if they are’.

Three of the librarians mentioned that they were not invited to any staff meetings in their schools.
One librarian, who had described a semi-collaborative working relationship with her teaching

McKeever et al. 2017. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187 59
colleagues, nevertheless stated: ‘I don’t get invited to their meetings or anything. There really is a
“them” and “us” culture between teachers and non-teaching staff.’

Four of the participants reported that they felt undervalued or ignored by their teacher colleagues.
One participant, who was a former teacher and had a non-collaborative relationship with her
teaching colleagues, said: ‘…if you’re not a teacher, you’re not regarded as highly’. Another who
described having a semi-collaborative relationship with teachers stated: ‘They just don’t see me as
useful; they don’t see how I can help them’.

Six librarians provided examples of attempting to promote IL in their schools in different ways
without success. One participant who was a former teacher and had a non-collaborative working
relationship with her teaching colleagues provided the following example:

‘I don’t really have any proper computers in here…As a result I have lost the Sixth Form really too,
they tend to go elsewhere now [to study] and I can’t promote IL using the computers in here. I
reported this to the Senior Management Team and I had the statistics to back it up but they just
don’t see the problem.’

5.4 Views of how teachers understand and incorporate IL in their practice

The librarians were asked if any of their teaching colleagues had ever asked them about IL or
anything related to the concept. The majority (ten) answered ‘No’. The other six said teachers had
asked them about IL skills or related skills, and unsurprisingly this was more common when
relationships involved some form of collaboration. A librarian who had a semi-collaborative working
relationship with her teaching colleagues said: ‘Yes, some would ask me to show the kids different
IL skills, like how to access information, how to reference it, how to narrow searches online…’
Another librarian who also had a semi-collaborative working relationship said: ‘The English
department have mentioned IL to me, they have mentioned the various associated skills such as
skimming, scanning…they actually said IL.’

Participants’ views of their teaching colleagues’ knowledge and awareness of IL were also
explored. One librarian thought teachers were aware of IL and the importance of the concept, while
three others (including one former teacher) said they did not think the teachers in their school were
aware of the concept. Two more librarians said they thought that their teaching colleagues would
not know the name of the concept and four (including two former teachers) reported that they
thought teachers would be aware of the skills associated with IL but would not know the name for
them. One of these former teachers said:

Teachers know about the skills – do you know skimming and scanning are required skills in
English? Teachers know these skills are important but they do not know the name for them,
the terminology – ‘IL’. They don’t know there is a connection between these skills and the
library, they haven’t made that link and I don’t think they have thought about IL. Once they
have been made aware of what IL is they will realise the importance…Even talking to you
about this throughout this interview, it is all just slotting into place for me now.

Four participants said that they could not comment on teachers and IL as they had never
discussed the concept with the ones they worked with.

Eight of the librarians, including two of the former teachers, mentioned that they thought teachers
were too busy to focus on IL or to collaborate to provide any skills instruction. The theme of pupils
being ‘spoon-fed’ also emerged, with five participants noting that they thought that teachers did the
work for pupils, rather than encouraging pupils to study and research independently. One said:
‘Independent research seems to be less and less important. The teachers sit and do everything for
their pupils.’ Four participants thought that teachers focussed more on obtaining good grades
rather than developing their pupils’ IL skills, one commenting that: ‘For teachers IL is far down the
priority list – they’re not worried about them learning to be information literate, they’re just trailing
them through exams’.

McKeever et al. 2017. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187 60
6. Discussion
When it came to answering the wider research question of how much post-primary school teachers
know about IL and how information literate they are, the analysis suggested that the majority of the
participating librarians thought that their teacher colleagues lacked knowledge and awareness of
the concept; the majority said they had never been asked about IL or anything to do with it, and
thought teachers did not know the phrase ‘IL’ or that these skills had a name. This finding is similar
to those from studies by Korobili et al. (2011) and Smith (2013) who found that teachers were not
familiar with the concept. Williams and Wavell (2006, p.56) also found that the many of the
teachers who participated in their study were not familiar with the term and that IL was a ‘relatively
new’ concept for them. Nine of the librarians, including three who had formerly been teachers, said
they believed that teachers were not aware of the phrase ‘IL’ or that there was a name for this set
of skills. Ten years after the Williams and Wavell (2006) study, it would appear that IL is still a
relatively new concept for teachers.

The majority of librarians (ten) said their teaching colleagues had never asked them about IL or
anything related to it, and of these, six described non-collaborative relationships with the teachers
in the schools they worked in. Six participants reported that teachers had asked them about IL or
related issues, four of these librarians had described semi-collaborative relationships with the
teachers in their school, suggesting that collaboration facilitates discussion of IL between teachers
and librarians. It is important to note however, that it was only in one case that the teachers
actually used the phrase ‘IL’; in other cases teachers had instead asked about skills associated
with the concept.

Several other themes emerged which may help explain teachers’ lack of knowledge and
awareness of IL. Teachers’ lack of time emerged as one of these themes and was suggested as a
barrier to the provision of IL skills instruction. Half of the participating librarians, including two of the
former teachers, said that they thought teachers did not have the time to focus on this kind of skills
instruction. One librarian said she actually avoided asking teachers about collaboration as she did
not want to add to their workload. This finding is in keeping with existing research (Williams &
Wavell, 2006; Probert, 2009; Korobili et. al, 2011; McKeever, 2012) which has reported that
teachers felt they lacked the time to provide any IL skills instruction, and were constrained by
timetables and heavy subject content.

The theme of ‘spoon-feeding’ – teachers providing information for their pupils rather than
encouraging them to source it for themselves – also emerged during these interviews and may
help to explain why the concept of IL has not received much attention from teachers to date. Five
participants, including one former teacher, thought that the teachers in their schools were doing
work for their pupils instead of encouraging them to study and research independently. This finding
is similar to those of Merchant and Hepworth (2002) and McKeever (2012), who also found that
teachers admitted to providing information for pupils rather than asking them to search for it
independently. If teachers are providing this information and doing this work for their pupils, their
pupils do not need to develop their IL skills to conduct independent research. Teachers are
therefore less likely to see the need to teach these skills.

A number of participants (four) thought that teachers focused on ensuring their pupils obtained
good grades rather than developing their IL skills. Bucher (2000) maintained that some educators
did not consider IL skills to be important as pupils are not explicitly assessed on them. As IL is not
explicitly referred to in the curriculum or overtly assessed, the content of the curriculum can be
considered as part of the problem. The target-driven nature of schools must be also be
acknowledged however, as there is pressure on teachers to obtain good grades and it can be
argued that teachers are not focusing on these skills or including them in their teaching as they are
not prioritising them. A recent report from the Chief Inspector for schools in NI referred to the focus
of schools on their positions in league tables (BBC, 2016). IL is now internationally recognised as
an essential competence in education, employment and society (Corrall, 2008, p.26) and given the
importance of these skills as lifelong learning skills, they must have a more significant presence in
school curricula.
McKeever et al. 2017. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(2)
http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187 61
To help answer the wider research question of whether teachers are providing any IL skills
instruction, findings demonstrated that the majority of librarians in this study were engaged in lower
level collaboration or no collaboration at all with teacher colleagues. No participant provided even a
single example of teacher–librarian collaboration in providing IL skills instruction. These findings
are similar to those of Mokhtar and Majid (2006) and Davies (2012).

Only one librarian described having a fully collaborative relationship with her teaching colleagues
and this was the only example of what could be considered as best practice; the librarian had
worked with the Head of English to decide on the content of the class visits and these included
skills associated with IL, although not explicitly referred to as IL skills. The importance of support
from school Principals or Heads of Departments has been documented in the existing literature,
with both Montiel-Overall (2005) and Probert (2009) stating that this is necessary for effective
collaboration and IL skills instruction.

These findings show that in the majority of cases, teachers and librarians are not collaborating to
provide any IL skills instruction. In instances where teachers do assist the librarian in delivering
class visits, they leave the librarian to provide any ‘library’ kind of instruction. Others have made
similar discoveries; Merchant and Hepworth (2002) noted that the teachers in their study were not
teaching IL skills to pupils. Probert (2009) found that few teachers reported doing anything to help
develop their pupils’ IL skills. Korobili et al. (2011) noted that the teachers in their study thought
that the school librarian was responsible for providing IL skills instruction and McKeever (2012)
also found that there was an assumption others were providing this instruction. These findings are
similar to those of Mokhtar and Majid (2006) who reported low levels of collaboration between
teachers and librarians. They suggested that teachers worldwide struggle to recognise the school
librarian as a collaborative partner in education, an idea also expressed by Kuhlthau et al. (2007)
and Chu et al. (2011).

The lack of collaboration also had the effect of causing librarians to feel excluded, undervalued and
ignored. Without being asked or prompted, many librarians referred to experiencing these feelings
in different ways. Montiel-Overall (2005), Mokhtar and Majid (2006) and Davies (2012) all
discussed these issues; Montiel-Overall noted that being treated as equal was necessary when
collaborating. Davies found that many librarians felt regarded as a caretaker of books rather than a
collaborative partner and that many were not invited to attend meetings. As noted above, Mokhtar
and Majid found that the teachers in their study did not view their librarian as a collaborative
partner and one of the reasons provided for this was due to the librarians’ lack of professional
qualification. This raises the issue of the professional status of the librarian. The context in NI must
also be taken into consideration here, as it is in this context where there is not a statutory
requirement for a professionally qualified school librarian that school library staff members are not
being viewed by teachers as equal partners.

7. Conclusion
So where do we go from here? With mounting evidence that IL is critical for pupil learning both in
and beyond the classroom, that teachers have a role in developing pupils’ IL skills, and that
teachers themselves need to develop their own competencies, there is evidence to suggest that
teachers need support for this. There also need to be cultural and policy shifts where developing IL
in teachers and pupils is valued and where school library staff, who in many cases are
professionally trained and educated in IL, can effectively contribute to the process through
collaboration with teaching staff. This, therefore, is a call for greater intra-school collaboration so
that a shared knowledge base regarding IL can be developed. This does not mean re-inventing the
wheel, which is particularly important due to the pressures on their time that teaching staff
members are under. Models, templates and guidelines exist for bringing IL more fully into the
classroom and on a regional level, NI can learn from the policies in Scotland
(http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/informationliteracy/) and Wales (Head & Jackson, 2011)
regarding IL in a school context.

McKeever et al. 2017. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187 62
This research has provided insight into the views of school library staff on their teacher colleagues’
knowledge and awareness of IL. Suggestions for further research include further investigation of
teacher–librarian relationships, a thorough examination of the NI Curriculum to map where IL
comes through in subject specifications and in cross curricular strands, teachers’ views and
implementation of the NI Curriculum, the role of the school librarian and school library provision
throughout the UK, IL in early years education and in the primary school sector, teacher practice
relating to IL skills instruction and a thorough assessment of the levels of teachers’ IL.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to sincerely thank Dr Claire McGuinness, University College Dublin, for
reading an earlier draft of this paper and providing valuable feedback. We would also like to
acknowledge the funding support from the then Department of Employment and Learning (DEL),
Northern Ireland through a DEL-funded PhD studentship for Christine McKeever.

References
Asselin, M. & Lee, E. (2002). I wish someone had taught me: Information literacy in a teacher
education program. Teacher Librarian, 30(2), pp.10–17.

BBC (2016). NI schools inspector says pupils not getting good enough education. Available at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37996040 [Accessed: 20 November 2017].

Bucher, K. T. (2000). The importance of information literacy skills in the middle school curriculum.
The Clearing House, 73(4), pp.217–220.

Carpenter, J. P. & Linton, J. N. (2016) Edcamp unconferences: Educators' perspectives on an

untraditional professional learning experience. Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, pp. 97–108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.004

Chu, S. K. W., Tse, S. K., & Chow, K. (2011). Using collaborative teaching and inquiry project-
based learning to help primary school students develop information literacy and information skills.
Library & Information Science Research, 33(2), pp.132–143.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2010.07.017

Church, A. P. (2008). The instructional role of the library media specialist as perceived by
elementary school principals. School Library Media Research, 11, pp.1–35.

CILIP (2010). School libraries in the UK: A worthwhile past, a difficult present – and a transformed
future? Main report of the UK National Survey. Available at:
https://www.jcsonlineresources.org/sites/default/files/full-school-libraries-report_CILIP.pdf
[Accessed: 20 November 2017].

CILIP (2011). Information Literacy: definition. Available at:

https://archive.cilip.org.uk/research/topics/information-literacy [Accessed: 20 November 2017].

CILIP (2015). A study of the UK information workforce: Mapping the Library, Archives, Records,
Information Management and Knowledge Management and related professions – Executive
Summary. Available at:
https://communities.cilip.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/executive_summary_nov_2015-
5_a4web.pdf [Accessed: 20 November 2017].

Corrall, S. (2008). Information literacy strategy development in higher education: An exploratory

study. International Journal of Information Management, 28, pp.26–37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.07.002

Davies, M. (2012). A study of post-primary teacher and librarian collaboration in Northern Ireland.
MSc Thesis, University of Ulster.

McKeever et al. 2017. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187 63
Doyle, C. S. (1999). Information literacy in an information society. In K. Haycock (ed.), Foundations
for effective school library media programs pp.97–100. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Fitzgerald, M. (2004). Making the leap from high school to college: Three new studies about
information literacy skills of first-year college students. Knowledge Quest, 32(4), pp.19–24.

Floyd, D. M., Colvin, G., & Bodur, Y. (2008). A faculty-librarian collaboration for developing
information literacy skills among preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2),
pp.368–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.018

Fulton, K. P. (2003). Redesigning schools to meet 21st century learning needs. The Journal, 30(9),
Apr. 1, pp.30–35.

Griffin, M. (1981). Study and information skills in the primary school. London: British Library
Research and Development Department, BLR&D Report number 5784.

Head, J. and Jackson, C. (2011). The Welsh information literacy project: First steps in developing
an information literate nation. Journal of Information Literacy, 5(1), pp.99–102.
https://doi.org/10.11645/5.1.1598

Herring, J. (1996). Teaching information skills in schools. London: Library Association Publishing.

Herring, J. (2011). Improving students’ web use and information literacy: A guide for teachers and
teacher librarians. London: Facet.

Hopkins, D. (1987). Knowledge, information skills and the curriculum. London: British Library
Research and Development Department, Library and Information Research Report 46.

Irving, C. (2011). National information literacy framework (Scotland): pioneering work to influence
policy-making or tinkering at the edges? Library Trends, 60(2), 419–438.
https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2011.0036

Jackson, C. & Mogg, R. (2005). Embedding information literacy into the curriculum. Library and
information update, 4(1–2), pp.32–33.

Johnson, D. (1999). Implementing an information literacy curriculum: One district's story. NASSP
Bulletin, 83(605), 53–61. Available at:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/019263659908360508 [Accessed: 6 February 2017].

Kimmel, S. C., Dickinson, G. K. & Doll, C. A. (2014). The cultural commons of teen literacy. In: M.
Orey, S. Jones & Branch, R. (eds.), Education media and technology yearbook, Volume 38
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06314-0_9

Klebansky, A., & Fraser, S. P. (2013). A strategic approach to curriculum design for information
literacy in teacher education – implementing an information literacy conceptual framework.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(11), pp.103–125.
https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n11.5

Korobili, S., Malliari, A., Daniilidou, E. & Christodoulou, G. (2011). A paradigm of information
literacy for Greek high school teachers. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 43(2),
pp.78–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000611408644

Kuhlthau, C. (1987). Information skills for an information society (Report ED 297740), ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Resources, Syracuse NY.

Kuhlthau, C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s perspective.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, pp.361–371.

McKeever et al. 2017. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187 64
Kuhlthau, C. (1994). Students and the information search process: Zones of intervention for
librarians. Advances in Librarianship, 18, pp.57–72. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0065-
2830(1994)0000018004

Kuhlthau, C. (1997). Learning in digital libraries: an information search process approach –

Children and the digital library. Library Trends, 45(4), pp.708–724.

Kuhlthau, C. (2003). Rethinking libraries for the information age school: Vital roles in inquiry
learning. School Libraries in Canada, 22(4), pp.3–5.

Kuhlthau, C., Maniotes, L., & Caspari, A. (2007). Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century.
Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Lance, K. C. (2002). Impact of school library media programs on academic achievement. Teacher
Librarian, 29(3), pp.29–34.

Latham, D. & Gross, M. (2007). What they don’t know CAN hurt them: Competency theory, library
anxiety and student self-assessments of their information literacy skills. Proceedings of the ACRL
Thirteenth National Conference, March 29–April 1, 2007, Baltimore, Maryland, pp.277–286.
Available at:
http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/national/baltim
ore/papers/277.pdf [Accessed: 20 November 2017].

Latham, D., Julien, H., Gross, M. & Witte, S. (2016) The role of inter-professional collaboration to
support science learning: An exploratory study of the perceptions and experiences of science
teachers, public librarians, and school librarians. Library & Information Science Research, 38(3),
pp.193–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2016.08.002

Laverty, C., Reed, B., & Lee, E. (2008). The “I’m feeling lucky syndrome”: Teacher candidates’
knowledge of web searching strategies. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and
Information Practice and Research, 3, pp.1–19. https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v3i1.329

Lee, E., Reed, B. & Laverty, C. (2012). Preservice teachers’ knowledge of Information Literacy and
their perceptions of the school library program. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 31, pp.3–
22.

Libraries All Party Parliamentary Group (2014). “The Beating Heart of the School”, London: CILIP.
Available at: http://www2.eastriding.gov.uk/EasySiteWeb/GatewayLink.aspx?alId=620060 [Accessed:
20 November 2017].

Mancall, J. C., Aaron S. L., & Walker, S. A. (1986). Educating students to think: The role of the
library media program. A concept paper written for the National Commission on Libraries and
Information Science. School Library Quarterly, Journal of the American Association of School
Librarians, 15(1), pp.18–27.

McKeever, C. (2012). Information literacy skills in Year 14 school leaving pupils – are they ready
for third level study? Dissertation submitted in partial requirement for the MSc in Library and
Information Management, School of Education, Ulster University.

Merchant, L. & Hepworth, M. (2002). Information literacy of teachers and pupils in schools. Journal
of Librarianship and Information Science, 34(2), pp.81–89.
https://doi.org/10.1177/096100060203400203

Mertes, N. (2014). Information literacy teaching and collaboration with the school library: What
teachers think and do. In International Association of School Librarianship. Selected Papers from
the... Annual Conference (pp. 160–177). International Association of School Librarianship.

McKeever et al. 2017. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187 65
Mokhtar, I. A. & Majid, S. (2006). An exploratory study of the collaborative relationship between
teachers and librarians in Singapore primary and secondary schools. Library and Information
Science Research, 28(2), pp.265–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2006.03.005

Montiel-Overall, P. (2005). A theoretical understanding of teacher and librarian collaboration (TLC).

School Libraries Worldwide, 11(2), pp.24–48.

Moore, P. (2002). An analysis of information literacy education worldwide. White Paper prepared
for UNESCO, the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, and the
National Forum on Information Literacy, for use at the Information Literacy Meeting of Experts,
Prague, The Czech Republic. Available at:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.130.9783&rep=rep1&type=pdf
[Accessed: 20 November 2017].

Moore, P. & St. George, A. (1991). Children as information seekers: The cognitive demands of
books and library systems. School Library Media Quarterly, 19(3), pp.161–168.

Palincsar, A. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of
Psychology, 49, pp.345–375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.345

Probert, E. (2009). Information literacy skills: Teacher understandings and practice. Computers
and Education, 53(1), pp.24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.018

Rader, H. B. (2002). Information literacy – an emerging global priority. White Paper prepared for
UNESCO, the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, and the National
Forum on Information Literacy, for use at the Information Literacy Meeting of Experts, Prague, The
Czech Republic. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246471732_Information_
Literacy-an_emerging_global_priority [Accessed: 20 November 2017].

Reed, S. L. & Stavreva, K. (2006). Layering knowledge: Information literacy as critical thinking in
the literature classroom. Pedagogy, 6(3), pp.435–452. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-2006-004

Russell, S. (2002). Teachers and library media specialists: Collaborative relationships. Teacher
Library Media Specialist, 29(5), pp.35–38.

Shrage, M. (1990). Shared minds. New York: Random House.

Smith, C. (2003). Information literacy: Classroom applications. ERIC Topical Bibliography and
Commentary, Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse, (ED482398). Available at:
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED482398.pdf [Accessed: 20 November 2017].

Smith, J. K. (2013). Secondary teachers and information literacy (IL): Teacher understanding and
perceptions of IL in the classroom. Library & Information Science Research, 35(3), pp.216–222.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2013.03.003

Starrs, J. (2002). School Libraries in Northern Ireland: An Investigation into Their Current and
Potential Contribution to Learning, A Report on research conducted for the Association of Chief
Librarians, Northern Ireland, Belfast: DENI. Available at:
http://www.welbni.org/uploads/file/pdf/School%20Libraries%20in%20NI_021729.pdf [Accessed: 20
November 2017].

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. (2nd ed.) London: Sage Publications.

Streatfield, D., Shaper, S., Markless, S., & Rae-Scott, S. (2011). Information literacy in United
Kingdom schools: Evolution, current state and prospects. Journal of information literacy, 5(2),
pp.5–25. https://doi.org/10.11645/5.2.1629

McKeever et al. 2017. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187 66
Terwel, J. (1999). Constructivism and its implications for curriculum theory and practice. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 31(2), pp.195–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/002202799183223

Van Ingen, S. & Ariew, S. (2015). Making the invisible visible: Preparing preservice teachers for
first steps in linking research to practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, pp.182–190.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.07.001

Williams, D. & Coles, L., (2003). The use of research by teachers: Information literacy, access and
attitudes. Final Report on a study funded by the ESRC. Research Report 14, Department of
Information Management, The Aberdeen Business School, The Robert Gordon University.
Available at:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.488.3873&rep=rep1&type=pdf
[Accessed 20 November 2017].

Williams, D. & Coles, L. (2007). Evidence-based practice in teaching: An information perspective.

Journal of Documentation, 63(6), pp.812–835. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410710836376

Williams, D. and Wavell, C. (2001). The impact of the school library resource centre on learning.
Report on research conducted for Resource: The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries.
Library and Information Commission. Research Report 112. Research Report 9, School of
Information and Media, Faculty of Management, The Robert Gordon University. Available at:
https://www.rgu.ac.uk/2D226E40-595C-11E1-BF5B000D609CB064 [Accessed: 20 November
2017].

Williams, D. & Wavell, C. (2006). Information literacy in the classroom: secondary school teachers’
conceptions. Final report on research funded by Society for Educational Studies. Research Report
15, Department of Information Management, Aberdeen Business School, The Robert Gordon
University. Available at:
https://openair.rgu.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10059/42/SESfinalreportPDF17_07_06.pdf?sequence=1
&isAllowed=y [Accessed: 20 November 2017].

Wolf, S. E. (2004). Making the grade with information literacy. School Library Journal, 50(3), p.6.

Zurkowski, P. G. (1974). The information service environment: Relationships and priorities.

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Washington, D.C. National Program
for Library and Information Services. Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED100391.pdf
[Accessed: 20 November 2017].

McKeever et al. 2017. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187 67
Appendix: Interview Schedule (school library staff)
Interview Schedule for the School Library Staff Interviews

Background information

1. How long have you worked here in this School Library? Have you worked in other libraries?
2. What is your job title? Are you a school librarian or library assistant?
3. Do you have any library (or other) qualifications? What are they and where/how did you
study for these?

Information literacy training

4. What is your understanding of information literacy? What about in regards to recognising a

need for information/knowing how to find/evaluate/use/communicate information? To what
extent do you think recognising information literacy is important and why?
5. Can you tell me about any information on information literacy (or anything related to it) you
have ever received? Can you describe it?

Information literacy instruction in the library

6. How are pupils introduced to the library and familiarised with it? What is your role in this?
7. How do pupils make use of the library facilities? Do you hold class visits? Are they useful,
in what ways? What is your role in these visits, how much input do you have in them?
When and how often would pupils come to the library?
8. Do you provide any information literacy skills instruction? Or is information literacy part of
any other instruction you provide, does it feature in library inductions for example?
9. If you provide information literacy sessions, are they general or subject specific? What is
the content? Would you like to do more? What would you like to do?

Information literacy in the NI Curriculum

10. What are your views on information literacy and its place in the NI Curriculum?
11. To what extent has it been promoted in this school?

Teacher–Librarian Collaboration

12. How do you liaise with the teaching staff? What is the nature of this relationship – do you
collaborate or who decides what needs to done? Do any of the teaching staff ever
approach you for help? If so what kind of help and how often would this happen?
13. Which departments use the library the most and least and why do you think this is?
14. Do you liaise with any other staff? Do any other staff ever approach you asking for help with
anything? If so can you describe this?

Opinions of teachers and IL

15. What do teachers ask you about? Have any of the teachers ever asked you about
information literacy? Do they ask you about anything that might relate to information
literacy?
16. How do you think teachers generally view information literacy? Do you think they consider it
to be important?

Conclusion

Do you have anything else you would like to add? Do you have any questions for me? Thank you
for taking the time to meet with me and for participating in this study.

McKeever et al. 2017. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187 68