Information literacy in United Kingdom schools

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, using structured focus groups of teachers and library assistants and telephone interviews with Heads.
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 models of 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.

Full text

Journal of Information Literacy
ISSN 1750-5968
Volume 5 Issue 2
December 2011
Article
Streatfield, D., Shaper, S., Markless, S., and Rae-Scott, S. 2011. Information
literacy in United Kingdom schools: evolution, current state and prospects.
Journal of information literacy, 5(2), pp.5-25.
http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I2-2011-1
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.
“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 [Retrieved 22
January 2007].

Streatfield. Shaper, Markless and Rae-Scott. 2011. Journal of Information Literacy 5(2). 5
http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I2-2011-1
Information literacy in United Kingdom schools:
evolution, current state and prospects
David Streatfield, Principal, Information Management Associates.
Email: streatfield@blueyonder.co.uk
Sue Shaper, Librarian, The Broxbourne School.
Email: s_shaper@hotmail.com
Sharon Markless, Senior Lecturer in Higher Education, King's College London
and University of Surrey.
Email: sharon.markless@kcl.ac.uk
Simon Rae-Scott, Associate, Information Management Associates and
Managing Director, ConnectWorks Limited.
Email: onlyconnect@connectworks.co.uk
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.

Streatfield. Shaper, Markless and Rae-Scott. 2011. Journal of Information Literacy 5(2). 6
http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I2-2011-1
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.
Keywords:
School libraries; United Kingdom; primary schools; secondary schools; independent schools;
research; information skills; information literacy.
__________________________________________________________________________________
1. From information skills to information literacy
School librarians in the UK have been involved in what they have successively described as
information skills and information literacy for more than thirty years, but this work has never
been consolidated at a level that made it a consistent feature of teaching and learning in
schools. Rather, there have been various stages along the way when attention was focused
on information literacy so that it rose to the forefront of school library work, even if it has not
been fully embraced by schools (as we will show below). A major inhibitor throughout this
period is that, although successive UK governments have made empty references to the
importance of school libraries and their work, (most recently, the United Kingdom
Government in 2010 described school libraries as a “key resource for pupils and teachers”)
they have never required schools to have a school library, let alone set standards for school
library service delivery.
Some of the focal points in the development of UK information literacy work by school
librarians are listed in broadly chronological order below:
1979 – 1987: a cluster of research-based publications was produced in this period, often
with the active support of the British Library Research and Development Department, and
commencing with Educating Information Users in Schools by Irving & Snape (1979). Further
stimulation was provided by the Working Group sponsored by the British Library and the
Schools Council (Marland, 1981). This working group proposed using the term ‘information
skills’ to describe the skills needed by students to find, organise and use information. Other
publications focused on study and information skills in primary schools (Griffin, 1983), study
skills at post-16 level (Tabberer & Allman, 1981), the information needs of sixth formers
(Rudduck and Hopkins, 1984), and specifically on information skills development (Tabberer,
1987).
1985 – 1989: during these years the British Library Research and Development Department
funded a specific post of Liaison Officer for Information Skills in Schools, aimed at bridging
the gap between research and practice. The post was based at the National Foundation for
Educational Research. Sharon Markless, the post holder, was inter alia, joint editor of an
influential and widely distributed set of practical information skills tools designed for use in
secondary schools (Markless & Lincoln, 1986).
1988: The Education Reform Act introduced a number of changes to school management in
England. One change was that school budgets were devolved to schools from the local
education authorities which had hitherto provided a number of central services and ensured

Streatfield. Shaper, Markless and Rae-Scott. 2011. Journal of Information Literacy 5(2). 7
http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I2-2011-1
an element of equitability in development of school libraries. From this point on, all significant
financial decisions affecting State schools would be taken by the school governors and
senior managers, including decisions about school library expenditure.
1987 – 1994: a further flurry of research reports appeared, with a focus on: the curriculum
(Hopkins 1987; Howard 1991); on information technology skills (Carter & Monaco, 1987;
Irving 1990); on the role of the school librarian (Valentine & Nelson, 1988); and on teaching
skills for learning in initial teacher education (Best et al., 1990). These reports were
accompanied by a review of earlier publications on information skills in schools (Heeks,
1989) and, tangentially, work on information skills in further education (Markless and others,
1992; Morrison & Markless, 1992), as well as on the school library contribution to teaching
and learning (Streatfield & Markless, 1994). This programme of research came to a halt
when the library research functions of the British Library were subsumed into the Library and
Information Commission in 1995, apart from one major school libraries research project
(Williams & Wavell, 2001), focused on the school library role in supporting learning.
1999 – 2001: the UK national training programme of teachers in educational uses of ICT had
a parallel strand for school librarians. Librarians and their schools opted for a preferred
approved training provider. When (as in the case of LA ICT Training Consortium led by the
Library Association) the training on offer covered all the main aspects of ICT-supported
school librarianship, schools choosing this route could ensure that their librarians had a
refresher course in information literacy development.
April 2000: Fair Funding - another central government initiative - ensured that the schools
library services offered by many local education authorities to schools as a more or less
unique feature of educational support in the UK, would henceforward be subject to quasi-
market conditions. In local authorities which had maintained schools library support services
to their schools, the previously ring-fenced funding for these services was distributed to the
schools, notionally to be spent on school libraries, leaving headteachers to decide whether
to buy-in these services (incidentally, no comparable funds were allocated for school
libraries in local authorities which did not have a schools library service). Predictably (see
Markless et al., 2000), this has led to a gradual diminution in schools library services and to
some service closures, through school funding attrition over time.
2001 to date: In its brief moment in the sun before its name was changed, Re:source, (the
new national body for libraries, archives and museums which took over the functions of the
Library and Information Commission in 2000) funded two research overviews of the impact
of school libraries on achievement and learning in secondary and in primary schools
(Williams et al., 2001A; 2001B). Unfortunately, yet another change of name to the Museums,
Libraries and Archives Council signalled a shift in focus which led to a loss of interest in
library research, with the result that people concerned with information literacy research in
schools in the UK have had to depend upon small scale research studies conducted by
committed academics, such as Herring et al., 2002; Smith & Hepworth, 2007; or Crawford &
Irving, 2007. A noteworthy exception here is the substantial work on the teachers’
perspective conducted by Williams & Coles (2007). The key findings for practice from this
body of research have been filtered through to school librarians by information literacy
workshop facilitators employed by CILIP (since the mid-1990s), the School Library
Association and various schools library
services. Key learning points have also been applied
through consultancy, again notably that conducted by many schools library services.

Streatfield. Shaper, Markless and Rae-Scott. 2011. Journal of Information Literacy 5(2). 8
http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I2-2011-1
2003-4: In an unusual show of government interest in school libraries, the Department for
Education and Skills established a School Libraries Working Group which commissioned
school library self-evaluation frameworks and supporting materials for primary and for
secondary schools. Both these DfES publications had substantial information literacy self-
evaluation elements (Streatfield & Markless, 2004; Markless & Streatfield, 2004).
1985 to date: throughout this period there were occasional publications offering practical
guidance in information skills or literacy development for schools. These publications ranged
from Avann (1985) on teaching information skills in primary schools, Irving (1985) and later
the National Council for Educational Technology (1993) who looked at extending this work
across the curriculum, to Herring (1992; 2004; 2011), who focused on information
technology and the school librarian and Dubber, who offered guidance for primary schools
on behalf of the School Library Association (two publications - Dubber, 2008). The theme of
teaching information skills in schools was resumed by, amongst others, Brown (1994) and
Herring again (1996), but before the information literacy teaching theme could become too
complex, Rogers (1994) contributed a useful overview. The field was not confined to library-
focused participants: a pedagogical perspective was provided by Wray (1985; 1999) on
information skills teaching through project work; a skills framework developed by Wray &
Lewis (1997) was later incorporated into Key Stage 3 of the Government’s Literacy Strategy
for schools (aimed at students about 14 years old); and their work on writing frames, offered
as scaffolds for non-fiction writing (Lewis & Wray, 1997) has been influential, especially in
primary schools. Other significant offerings came from Waterhouse (1990) and Powell
(1991) on flexible learning, Gibbs (1988) on ‘learning by doing’ and Tann (1988) on topic
work in primary schools; there have also been contributions focused on information literacy
teaching and learning in the Web 2.0 environment (Markless & Streatfield, 2008) and on
becoming integral to teaching and learning (chapter 3 in Markless, 2009). More recently,
these publications have tended to be generic in character in order to appeal to education
librarians in any setting (e.g. Martin & Madigan, 2006; Goodwin & Parker, 2008); this
tendency is continuing with a new set of ‘tips’ now available(Blanchett et al., 2010).
The UK information literacy in schools activity has also been influenced by significant
overseas research (usually at one remove as interpreted by IL researchers and workshop
facilitators), especially work conducted in the US, Australasia and Scandinavia, as reviewed
by Virkus (for Europe - 2003) and as summarised by the Scholastic Research Foundation
(mainly US research - 2008) and Loertscher & Woolls (again with a US bias, but also
including major research from other countries - 2002). In a variation on the research
dissemination theme, the School Library Association arranged for Professor Ross Todd of
Rutgers University to run his inspirational workshops for UK school librarians in 2002 and
2004.
2. Surveying the field
The main part of this article focuses on recent UK investigations of IL in schools conducted
by the authors. These consist of: a small-scale investigation of IL in primary schools; a small
study, commissioned by the Reading Agency and the School Library Association (conducted
in England between October 2007; and April 2008) and two out of the three UK-related
national surveys (conducted between December 2009 and April 2010).

Streatfield. Shaper, Markless and Rae-Scott. 2011. Journal of Information Literacy 5(2). 9
http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I2-2011-1
2.1 Size and scope of the studies
Primary schools
The small-scale study was conducted through two overlapping phases: consultation with a
variety of headteacher, teachers and library staff through focus groups and telephone
interviews and a ‘mini-survey’ of schools using a short e-mail questionnaire (not reported on
here). We conducted 10 semi-structured telephone interviews with primary school
headteachers (8) or their nominees (2). Three structured focus groups were held (with the
help of the schools library services (SLSs)) in Portsmouth, Hertfordshire and Leicester,
involving a total of 45 teachers with library responsibility and library assistants, supported by
8 SLS staff.
Secondary, independent, middle and special schools
This work (Streatfield et al, 2010) was funded by the Wendy Drewett Bequest which is
administered by the Charted Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP). A
baseline e-survey of secondary, independent, middle and special school libraries focused on
describing the library and its resources. On completing the baseline survey, respondents
were invited to click through to a more detailed activities survey and to provide more
information about what school librarians do, including their work in relation to IL. In 15 local
authority target areas, chosen to provide a geographical spread and a range of local
authority types, respondents were given the additional option of an interview, in order to
build up a more detailed picture of the work of school librarians. (The parallel primary school
library survey conducted at this time did not focus on IL.)
The surveys, managed by David Streatfield, Sharon Markless and Simon Rae-Scott, all of
Information Management Associates, were both commissioned and actively supported by
the School Libraries Group of CILIP, who, inter alia, provided a team of volunteer
interviewers who were specially trained to conduct the survey interviews. (Sue Shaper, the
other author of this article, was Chair of the SLG at the commencement of the project and
was actively involved throughout.) 1,542 schools responded to the secondary and other
schools baseline survey and, more pertinently for the current theme, 1,044 librarians
completed one form or another of the activities survey, of whom: 44% were qualified
librarians; 6% held dual qualifications in education and librarianship; 3% were teachers who
had been assigned additional responsibility for day-to-day management and operation of the
library; 9% had an HE qualification in another subject discipline (i.e. not librarianship or
education; these people are identified as ‘Graduates’ below); and 31% were neither qualified
librarians nor graduates.
Replies were received from 762 secondary schools (73%), 177 independent schools (17%),
31 middle schools (3%) 17 academy schools (2%) and 57 others (5%), including a few that
did not identify their type.
3. Information literacy in primary schools
UK primary schools have seldom been able to afford to employ a dedicated school librarian
(although a few have entered into sharing arrangements, usually brokered by schools library
services, which involve a professionally qualified librarian sharing time across several
schools). Partly as a result of this dearth of specialist librarians there has been relatively little
attention paid to systematic IL development in primary schools. An exception was the small
study reported here, which was conducted to find out more about whether and how primary
schools use their libraries when seeking to develop the information skills of children
(Streatfield, 2008). This research was intended to inform the provision of guidance and
support material on IL and has not previously been published for a research or practitioner
audience. The guidance and support material was intended to accompany website material

Streatfield. Shaper, Markless and Rae-Scott. 2011. Journal of Information Literacy 5(2). 10
http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I2-2011-1
being made available to Primary headteachers and teachers aimed at stimulating work on
reading development.
The consultation element with school headteachers or their nominees and with teachers and
library assistants proved very useful in suggesting issues to be covered in designing the
website materials, but the response to the survey was too limited to be reported here.
Interview respondents were encouraged to describe what they did to encourage IL
development in their children, whether and how the library fitted in and any problems or
issues that they encountered in this work. Unlike the focus groups described below, all of
these interviews were conducted in schools which were fairly active in this work.
The three structured focus groups were all part of larger events organised for teachers and
library assistants. Participants were asked what happened in their schools in relation to
development of study skills, library skills and problem-solving skills and whether and how
their libraries were used in this work. They were asked to identify issues and problems in this
work and to rate the importance of IL work and then how well they felt that their school
performed in this work. The results of these interviews and the focus group discussions have
been combined below.
All 45 respondents thought that IL work was very important (“More important than ever” or
“How to teach research skills is more and more important – it will dominate their lives”) and
most thought that libraries offered a focus for such work (“Libraries should be part of
problem-solving”). As one teacher said, “There is no point in having a library to go in twice a
week to choose fiction.” However, even though the focus groups were skewed in favour of
library use (since their schools subscribed to the SLS and sent people to participate in their
library planning sessions), 21people felt that their school was doing nothing or very little on
IL. On the other hand, 15 people felt that their school was doing a fair amount, involving
some groups from time-to-time and five felt that their school was doing more systematic work
in this area; four support librarians were not sufficiently involved in teaching and learning to
judge how much IL work was going on.
A sense of the variety in approach can be gleaned from specific accounts of what schools
are doing. Two schools set IL targets for a term ahead (and another “had a whole school
focus on library skills last year”): one target for the then current term was ‘Finding information
in a non-information book’. Elsewhere, one school offers library skills sessions each
afternoon, covering each class once per week, on themes such as use the library,
alphabetical skills, and using non-fiction books. Another school runs sessions on fiction, non-
fiction and using contents lists. Elsewhere, a Literacy Co-ordinator was trying to introduce
formal sessions on using books. Five other schools reported variations on systematic year-
by-year skills development starting in Reception with how to look after a book and
progressing through to more complex issues (e.g. in Year 4: myths and facts; deciding what
we need to find out and how; scanning and locating information; in Year 5 - use the Dewey
System). Some children are (or were) taught research skills in the local public library by
children’s library staff. Several schools used activity sheets focussed around skills in the
library. One middle school conducted note taking work in the library.
In one area, various participants said that some schools were moving towards the
International Primary Curriculum. As a result, research skills become very prominent (“but it
is a lot easier to find what you want using laptops”) and children are taught dictionary skills.
One teacher commented that “We have a nice library, but it doesn’t really have any books; it
doesn’t compare to the Internet.” Another IPC school teacher differentiated between the
areas of IL that are taught – “Study skills are integrated into IPC and also problem-solving
skills, but not library skills. We need to address this.”

Streatfield. Shaper, Markless and Rae-Scott. 2011. Journal of Information Literacy 5(2). 11
http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I2-2011-1
Several schools reported an emphasis on computer-oriented skills (“Teachers spend more
time teaching Google.”) but five schools said that children are encouraged to use the Internet
(and get support in searching) in the IT suite rather than using the library.
IL work at primary level is frequently centred around collections of topic/project books on a
chosen theme borrowed from the SLS: these are usually kept in the classroom, but are
sometimes put in the library deliberately to enhance the library stock in supporting project
work, and children are then brought there to use them In several schools, the library staff
assemble topic books for the teacher but these are then used in the classroom. Elsewhere
children and teachers choose topic books together for the next topic (and even choose topics
jointly) in a deliberate attempt to make selection less teacher-led. This is because, “The
teacher choosing materials for a topic collection doesn’t encourage independent learning -
it’s just there.”
One teacher felt that “Project collections are quite controlling; they don’t give children the
freedom to make mistakes, to learn from their own research and to go off at tangents and
find links between different areas.” She wanted to find a way to exploit topic collections
“based on how children get information using the Internet.” Another added that “The dearth of
books is frustrating because children love this way of learning and we hit a brick wall, so the
motivation isn’t there.” Even within such controlling limits, the topic-based approach only
works well if the available resources are adequate. In one school, “we have parents who
come in for every class at some time during the week. Children can choose three reading
books or topic books; whatever they like, but if they want to choose topic books there usually
aren’t any there.” Another school reported “a bit of a fight over topic books.”
How is the library space used in primary IL work? Children in several of the schools go to the
library and work on tasks (usually in small groups). In other schools, when children are
working on a topic they go to the library, look for information, take the book back to the
classroom and put information on a worksheet. Elsewhere children go into the library at fixed
times during the week. More strategically, two headteachers commented favourably on
schemes of work, which are seen as helpful to teachers in providing a school-wide focus on
IL issues. 12 schools reported that they take advantage of SLS visits to obtain advice and
guidance around IL work.
IL work in primary schools is not necessarily library-focused. One school has positioned its IT
suite next to the library: children are encouraged to look up information in the IT suite and
then use books in the library, backed up by information sheets on how to use the library. In
several schools, children use the IT suite rather than the library for information-seeking.
Other teachers resort to book corners in classrooms (fiction and non-fiction), with the stock
changed regularly. One school uses the school hall as an extension of the library for library
skills lessons in Year 6.
The main problem signalled in the focus groups and interviews is the lack of curriculum time,
which is seen as inhibiting IL work. Even when time is allocated in the timetable it tends to be
sacrificed if there is pressure of other work to be completed. Participants felt that it would
help if materials to use in literacy sessions could be made available. One teacher warned,
however, that “there is a danger of IL activity getting a bit contrived; we should not be doing it
for its own sake.”
At one focus group there was debate about the perceived unpreparedness of secondary
school children to use libraries and to do effective e-searching. They saw a role for primary
schools in addressing this issue but “this would need a little more time.”
The interview respondents offered views about the impact of IT. It was generally agreed that
IT has already brought big changes in how children obtain and use information and that

Streatfield. Shaper, Markless and Rae-Scott. 2011. Journal of Information Literacy 5(2). 12
http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I2-2011-1
these changes look likely to continue, with further decline in the use of books to find
information. Some respondents are intrigued by the capacity for social networking through
Web 2.0, which is seen as likely to lead children to rely on other children to get the
information they need for homework or projects. (Interestingly, most respondents saw this as
a problem for secondary schools rather than primary).
All interview respondents felt that school libraries offer a way into the world of information
that should become more important as children go on through secondary and higher
education, but many thought that teachers may not be clear about how best to use the library
to develop skills. Immediate problems are that many school libraries don’t have enough
books and other resources to enable children to use them as a resource in doing projects
and assignments. This problem is likely to get worse: the recent UK survey of 651 primary
school libraries (Streatfield et al., 2010) shows that most primary school library budgets are
declining, with almost half the library budgets for stock and resources stuck at last year’s
level; and almost a third being cut, some from a very low base.
headteachers and teachers suggested that the way to get a school-wide approach to IL is to
start a discussion at a staff meeting, covering what sorts of children they want to send on into
secondary education in a world increasingly dominated by e-information.
4. Surveys of secondary, independent, middle and special schools
in the UK
We now turn our attention to post-primary education. The remainder of this article is based
on the first major surveys of UK school libraries and what librarians do since Helen Pain’s
overview conducted more than twenty years ago (Pain, 1987). (The size and scope of the
survey reported here is described in ‘2.1 Surveying the field’.)
We asked questions about how school librarians manage their service and how they are
managed, what they do to promote reading for pleasure within the school, whether and how
they actively support teaching and learning, how they engage with ICT and the Internet in
their work and what they regard as their most important role, before rounding off the survey
by asking people to share a story or incident that illustrates the relationship between the
library and the school. We will confine ourselves mainly to the IL dimension of school library
work below.
In reviewing the replies to our survey questions below, we usually chose to compare the
responses of professionally-qualified school librarians (including those with dual library and
education qualifications) with those of two other groups of respondents (teachers in charge
of libraries and other people with an academic qualification other than in education; and
people with no higher education qualification). Coincidentally, if the second and third
categories are combined, which we do with tables 1 and 2 below, the total number of
respondents in these two categories was identical at 522 each.
4.1 From information skills to information literacy revisited
The last decade has seen a gradual shift amongst academic librarians, at least in their own
professional discourse, away from discussion of information skills and towards more broadly
encompassing terms such as problem-solving skills or information literacy (Streatfield and
Markless, 2007). We were interested to see what terms are now used in schools to focus on
this area of work. We asked respondents what term, if any, was used to describe information
literacy work in the school. A range of terms was offered as shown in Table 1.

Streatfield. Shaper, Markless and Rae-Scott. 2011. Journal of Information Literacy 5(2). 13
http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I2-2011-1
Table 1: Preferred term for information work with students
Qualified
Librarians %
All
others % Total
%
Information literacy 153 29.3 94 18.0 247 23.7
Information skills 103 19.7 55 10.5 158 15.1
Library skills 47 9.0 75 14.4 122 11.7
Research skills 38 7.3 54 10.3 92 8.8
Study skills 44 8.4 36 6.9 80 7.7
Other 25 4.8 17 3.3 42 4.0
No particular expression
used/don't know 82 15.7 118 22.6 200 19.2
No response 30 5.7 73 14.0 103 9.9
These responses confirm that ‘information literacy’ (reported by 29% of professionally
qualified librarians, including those with dual qualifications) has taken over from ‘information
skills’ (reported by 20% of these) in the past few years as the preferred term used in schools
to describe the skills and abilities that students need to develop to locate, obtain, evaluate
and exploit information in all its forms. Terms such as ‘library skills’ (favoured by 17% of
unqualified librarians), ‘research skills’ and ‘study skills’ are more familiar to teachers but are
less comprehensive in their scope. A variety of other terms was reported (shown as ‘other’ in
table 1), including ‘independent learning’ (10 respondents), ‘learning to learn’ (5), ‘learning
skills’ (3) and ‘problem-solving’ (2), or “One school phrase that should encompass all these is
‘Building Learning Power’”. 10% of respondents failed to reply to this question and two of the
unqualified librarians confused information literacy with literacy programmes/classes.
Several librarians (again grouped within ‘other’ in table 1) reported that they chose their
language to suit the circumstances, knowing that using teachers’ preferred vocabulary could
help in communication, “some understand information literacy, others research skills or
information skills”. Other respondents saw the use of terms as evolving, “We use ‘learning
skills’ to encompass all of these - but this may change as collaborative teaching in the library
develops”.
4.2 Being strategic
Some indication of aspiration beyond the operational level is given by whether policy and
development documents are in place. 61% of the qualified librarians (including those with
dual qualifications in education and librarianship) had an active library policy in place that
had been approved by the school Senior Leadership Team or governors and was used to
guide the library strategy, including the IL work. This compared with 49% from all the other
categories.
Policies are all very well but what about action? 59% of the qualified librarians had a formally
approved library development plan in place, usually linked to the school improvement plan
and being used to drive the development of the library. This compared with 41% of
‘unqualified’ staff. The relationship between IL and planning is explored further below.
Another indicator of whether a strategic approach to the work is being adopted is the extent
to which library staff evaluate what they do proactively. For the most part, they still relied
upon collecting and reporting ‘busy-ness statistics’, with 76% of qualified librarians adopting
this approach compared with 63% of the other categories of library manager. Almost a third
of all the qualified librarians (33%) conducted user satisfaction surveys of students and/or
staff and 36% systematically recorded and reported success stories, compared with 22%
and 23% of the other categories. At a more challenging level, 19% of all the qualified
librarians conducted and reported on self-evaluation compared with 14% of the others.

Streatfield. Shaper, Markless and Rae-Scott. 2011. Journal of Information Literacy 5(2). 14
http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I2-2011-1
The other dimension that we explored with all respondents was the quality of feedback about
performance received by school librarians. 39% had access to the senior leadership team on
request (57% of these were qualified librarians) and 2% were members of this team. The
same proportion (39%) had received positive general feedback from senior managers and
31% had received public recognition for specific achievements. Some of the librarians waxed
lyrical about the enthusiastic support received from the headteacher and senior
management but others qualified their statements, usually by distinguishing between good
support around discipline and less enthusiasm for library development. By contrast, 34% of
respondents reported various levels of inconsistent support or indifference from senior
management, ranging from being largely ignored (29%) to receiving negative feedback.
4.3 Engaging with the main school activities
School librarians can contribute to the school in many ways, but important amongst these is
direct involvement in teaching and learning through IL development, promotion of reading for
pleasure, and other means. They can help too by directly supporting teachers, contributing
to the literacy drive and providing resource access (and increasingly, e-access) for students.
The survey results show that, on the whole, the more proactive school librarians operated
across all these fronts, although a few did appear to take on IL as their main role. It is
important to remember that the IL work that we will consider below is usually taken on
alongside this other work and that the library has to be organised and managed so that any
of this work can happen.
In what other ways do library staff engage directly with teaching and learning support? Apart
from their IL work described below, the main focus here is on assembling appropriate
resources for teachers to use in their subject teaching, but some library staff are more
proactive in anticipating needs by obtaining schemes of work from teachers or their
departments. Smaller numbers of library staff went further in providing systematic proactive
support by engaging in curriculum
planning activities alongside teachers, conducting
curriculum mapping, running CPD sessions for teachers on available resources, or other
means. Increasingly, school librarians are also getting involved in exploiting the school
Intranet, virtual learning environment (VLE) or Learning Platform as a student learning
resource.
School librarians have many other roles of course, from liaising with teachers or exploiting
ICT and Internet access to information, to deploying resources to support teaching and
learning or basic organi sation of the library and its environment. However, when we asked
everyone what they thought was the most important aspect of their role as librarian, the two
most frequently mentioned activities were promoting reading for pleasure (picked as the
most important activity or one of several by 39% of respondents) and developing IL work in
the school (seen as most important or jointly so by 25%). More than twice as many of the
qualified librarians chose IL work than did other categories of respondent (33% compared to
16%).
4.4 Information literacy (IL) work with students
When it comes to targeting efforts, the relatively easy option in IL work is to concentrate on
students in their first year or two years when problems and issues around information are
most evident, or on sixth formers who may be more receptive to ideas about effective
researching and presentation of information. However, it has long been advocated that
effective IL work should be addressed progressively through the years at school (see for
example, Kinnell, 1992; chapter 7 in Streatfield & Markless, 1994), which offers a much
bigger challenge and demands collaboration from teachers and senior management support.
Where did the survey respondents focus?

Streatfield. Shaper, Markless and Rae-Scott. 2011. Journal of Information Literacy 5(2). 15
http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I2-2011-1
Table 2: Focus of IL work on students through the years
Qualified
Librarians %
All
others % Total
%
Work with one/ two years 243 46.6 176 33.7 419 40.1
Work with most years 88 16.9 71 13.6 159 15.2
Work with all years 47 9.0 61 11.7 108 10.3
Focus on progression
through the years 43 8.2 30 5.7 73
7.0
No reply 101 19.3 184 35.2 285 27.3
More than 80% of the professionally qualified school librarians reported a clear focus in
their IL work (with almost half choosing to concentrate on one or two academic years);
by contrast more than a third of the ‘others’ category were inactive or did not identify any
focus. Many librarians are gradually expanding their efforts in this area. One qualified
librarian explained:
I am currently working with most year groups but the aim is for me to develop
progression through the years and build it in to schemes of work. I teach an
information literacy course to all Year 7 students in ICT lessons in an ICT room
as a starting point. I am hoping to use the Personal Learning and Thinking Skills
strand, along with the whole school policy on information literacy I have already
put in place, to develop this further.
Clearly, to focus on IL progression through the years constitutes a major challenge for most
schools and is well beyond the capacities of the school librarian alone. (We will comment
further on collaborative work between librarians and teachers below.)
IL work may be important but how actively do library staff get involved? Unsurprisingly, a
substantially higher proportion of graduates (91%) and qualified librarians (87%) engage with
this work in the school than do the ‘unqualified’ librarians (66%). (This difference becomes
more marked when the IL contributions are examined more closely below.) Several of the
library staff reported that they were no longer allowed to get involved or had no opportunity
to do so. There may be some ‘traditional’ teaching-focused (rather than learning-focused)
schools where IL work by library staff is not appropriate and there are some library staff who
are not willing or able to do IL work.
Is there any relationship between being generally strategic in managing the library, as
discussed earlier, and how people engage with IL? We looked at two particular dimensions
here: how well the librarian was assimilated within the school management, as shown by the
supervision arrangements in place, and whether the librarian had produced and embedded a
school policy or (especially) a library development plan. In both cases we looked at the
relationship between this feature and IL work in the school.
Turning first to supervision of the school librarian: 39% of the respondents reported to the
headteacher or Deputy headteacher and 21% to an Assistant headteacher. 65% of all the
qualified librarians reported at these levels, compared with 55% of other categories of library
manager. 14% of respondents reported to another member of the Senior Leadership Team
(SLT), usually one with an area of curriculum responsibility, but 10% reported to the Bursar,
Finance Director or Business Manager, which is likely to weaken the librarian’s scope for
engaging with curriculum matters. (Interestingly, several people reported to a Deputy or
Assistant headteacher on curriculum-related matters and to the Bursar for administration.)

Streatfield. Shaper, Markless and Rae-Scott. 2011. Journal of Information Literacy 5(2). 16
http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I2-2011-1
Senior management supervision is clearly a contributory factor in IL work. 81% of those
librarians who reported that they were most ambitious in offering IL activity to most or all
student years, or who were working on IL progression through the years, reported to the
headteacher, or a Deputy or Assistant headteacher or to another member of the senior
leadership team.
1
By contrast, only 66% of librarians who were not actively pursuing IL
reported to a member of the senior leadership team. More tellingly, 54% of the first group of
librarians reported to the highest school management levels ( headteacher or Deputy)
compared with 34% of those who were not active in IL work.
Is there an association between school library planning and active IL working? Here we
identified the librarians who had created a library policy or (especially) a library development
plan, had it officially adopted by senior management and often by the school governors and
ensured that it linked to the school improvement plan. Next, we found that IL was being
pursued progressively through the years, or was being worked on with all or most years in
63% of these schools. ) This contrasted markedly with the schools where the librarian was
not active in IL work but was involved in generating library development plans and
embedding them in the School Improvement plan – only 35% of schools.
What types of IL work do librarians undertake? As can be seen in Table 3, qualified
librarians and graduates (including teachers) were consistently more frequently involved in
all aspects of IL delivery than the other categories of librarian, notably in conducting lessons
in the library (reported by 67% of qualified librarians, 62% of graduates and 40% of the other
groups), supporting teacher lessons in the library (65% of qualified librarians, 66% of
graduates and 45% of others) and preparing guides for students (55%, 51% and 33%).
Table 3: Types of information literacy activity undertaken by library staff
Qualified
Librarians %
Teachers/
Graduates
(n = 123 %
Others
(n = 399) % Total
%
Student induction 403 77.2 91 74.1 253 63.4 747 71.6
Conduct lessons in library 350 67.0 76 61.8 159 39.8 585 56.0
Conduct lessons in
classroom 70 13.4 12 9.8 20 5.0 102
9.8
Support teacher lessons in
library 337 64.6 81 65.9 181 45.4 599
57.4
Support teacher lessons in
classroom 77 14.8 21 17.1 36 9.0 134
12.8
Prepare guides for
students 289 55.4 63 51.2 132 33.1 484
46.4
Prepare materials for
teachers 142 27.2 26 21.1 92 23.1 260
24.9
Provide on-line tutorials 50 9.6 3 2.4 14 3.5 67 6.4
4.5 Aspects of information literacy covered by library staff
Which parts of the IL cycle do the library staff concentrate upon and is the focus of the
different categories of library staff consistent across these areas? The responses are
summarised and presented by category of librarian in Table 4.
1
For this comparison, librarians who reported to the bursar or finance manager were excluded
because, although they were usually part of the Senior Leadership Team, they were not usually
involved in curriculum activity.

Streatfield. Shaper, Markless and Rae-Scott. 2011. Journal of Information Literacy 5(2). 17
http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I2-2011-1
Table 4: Main focus of IL contribution of library staff
Qualified
Librarians
% Teachers/
Graduates
n= 123
% Others
n = 399
% Total
%
Find Information 370 70.9 80 65.0 194 48.6 644 61.7
Select Information 303 58.0 66 53.7 157 39.3 526 50.4
Evaluate Information 235 45.0 37 30.1 103 25.8 375 35.9
Make sense 187 35.8 32 26.0 98 24.6 317 30.4
Answer Questions 191 36.6 30 24.4 107 26.8 328 31.4
Solve problems 155 29.7 26 21.1 90 22.6 271 26.0
If we compare the three groups in relation to each phase in the IL cycle, the difference in
focus becomes clearer. 71% of qualified and dual-qualified librarians focused on finding
information compared with 65% of teachers and other graduates and 49% of the others; 58%
of the qualified librarians focused on selecting information, compared with 54% and 39% of
the other two categories. The difference becomes more marked again in relation to
evaluating information (45%, compared to 30% and 26%); the extremes then narrow slightly
when the focus turns to making sense of information (36%, compared to 26% and 25%),
using information to answer questions (37%, compared to 24% and 27%) and using
information to solve problems (30%, compared to 21% and 23%). A complication here is that
other answers suggest that some of the unqualified librarians concentrate on answering
questions and solving problems for their students rather than supporting them in doing so
themselves.
Commentators on education librarianship have increasingly pointed to the tendency of
librarians to focus their IL efforts on those aspects that are most familiar to them (information
seeking and selecting) rather than the more challenging aspects of evaluating and making
sense of information to answer questions and solve problems. The replies from all
respondents shown here tend to confirm this emphasis, which may prove to be misapplied if
the promised ICT advances in locating and assessing information are achieved in the next
few years.
A few respondents made it clear that they saw all of their efforts holistically as a campaign to
encourage students to think for themselves:
“It is vital that students learn how to think for themselves, so many library
activities are geared towards methods of encouraging this skill, using all the
resources available to me, including information literacy, collaborative learning
and web 2.0 materials. It requires a lot of teaching and collaboration with
teaching staff. While this is not specifically mentioned on my job description, I
believe it is fundamental to my role.”
A few librarians reported that they could no longer get involved in IL work because of senior
management changes leading to a shift in the school focus, diminution in their role as
librarian or other changes. One qualified librarian was no longer involved because:
“We only have four 75 minute lessons a day now, so there doesn't seem to be
any time in the curriculum. I used to be involved via GNVQ in teaching these
skills but they are no longer taught. I suspect that these skills are not taught
anywhere in the school now. Changes in timetable and syllabi have pushed out
these skills and the library is not seen as having any role in relation to them.”

Streatfield. Shaper, Markless and Rae-Scott. 2011. Journal of Information Literacy 5(2). 18
http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I2-2011-1
4.6 Collaboration with teachers
Library staff are most likely to be effective in developing IL work in the school (as well as
reading promotion and various forms of curriculum support) if they collaborate with teachers,
because otherwise the ratio of library staff numbers to students is very much against them.
Collaboration will also help to bridge the gap in librarian understanding of current teaching
issues (unless of course the librarians are also teachers). The need for a strategic approach
to fostering collaboration is well illustrated by the following quote from a dual-qualified
librarian:
“I talk to teachers about teaching and learning, then, when I know their interests,
I pass things their way and link them up with other teachers. I participate in
academic meetings so I know the priorities and what people have to do. Most of
my success comes from being proactive in supporting individual teachers and
continuing to engage with them. Teachers are often isolated (not all departments
are cohesive) and when in the classroom they are on their own. Collaboration
depends on relationship building - trust, feeling safe, ways to bond, such as
talking though commonalities of problems.”
The extent and forms of collaboration undertaken are summarised in Table 5.
Table 5: Types of collaboration of library staff with teachers
Qualified
librarians
% Teachers/
Graduates
n = 123
% All
others
n = 399
% Total %
Assemble materials
for teachers 360
69.0
75 61.0 223 55.9 658 63.0
Joint planning of
lessons 176 33.7 20 16.3 51 12.8 247 23.7
Joint delivery of
lessons 219 42.0 33 26.8 68 17.0 320 30.7
Joint assessment of
students 43 8.2 8 6.5 14 3.5 65 6.2
Joint review of
lessons 61 11.7 6 4.9 20 5.0 87 8.3
Respond to teacher
invitations 271 51.9 51 41.5 159 39.8 481 46.1
Professionally qualified librarians more frequently engaged with all of these activities than
did the other groups of library staff. This difference was most notable with joint planning of
lessons (34% compared to 16% and 13%), joint delivery of lessons (42% compared to 27%
and 17%) and joint review of lessons (12% compared to 5%), as well as in assembling
materials for teachers (69%, 61% and 56%).
This kind of collaboration does not occur without effort and it requires an opportunistic
approach at least at the outset. A qualified librarian described her response to such an
opportunity:
“You have to be very pushy if you want to be included in planning. For example,
Year 8 did a two-day racism-awareness event run by an outside organi sation. I
was told what was happening and asked if they could use the library for part of it,
but they had no awareness of the potential of the library so I inundated them with

Streatfield. Shaper, Markless and Rae-Scott. 2011. Journal of Information Literacy 5(2). 19
http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I2-2011-1
lots of relevant photos and poems. This did develop into joint planning and they
were pleased afterwards, but surprised at the time.”
The relative status and employment terms of teachers and librarians can be a stumbling
block to development of collaborative working. A qualified librarian reported her salutary
experience of joint working which involved:
“An IT year 8 project on astronomy – it was team taught, but died a death
because the teacher assumed I would do half of the marking. I raised it with the
union (I did not have an academic contract) - now I would play it differently,
because it was an opportunity lost. This is one reason why librarians should be
dually qualified.”
As noted earlier, some librarians choose to operate more strategically by engaging teachers
with IL issues rather than working with individual teachers in lesson delivery. Several of the
interview respondents reported that they provide staff INSET training on IL, Internet
searching and Web 2.0, or target training at newly qualified teachers and trainee teachers –
“I open up questions about how students go about their learning.”
5. Three approaches to information literacy (IL) intervention in
schools
Three broad categories of IL behaviour of librarians emerge from the activity survey findings
outlined above. The behaviour of librarians can be characteri sed in three approaches, which
we have labelled strategic orchestration, systematic development, and sporadic
opportunism.
Approach 1: Sporadic opportunism
The librarian usually has no formal remit for IL intervention but takes whatever opportunities
occur to help ‘friendly’ teachers with project work or to teach information sessions in the
classroom or library, as well as to give advice to individual students. These interventions
usually focus on finding and selecting information. This approach is typical in schools where
there is no established tradition of IL work or where the librarian has little or no direct help in
running the library. It is limited by the available time of the librarian and the willingness of
individual teachers to solicit help. The approach is vulnerable to changes in school staff,
attitudes or priorities
Approach 2: Systematic development
Here the librarian sets out to secure and sustain senior management support for an IL policy
(usually linked to the school improvement plan) and to build alliances with interested
teachers. The librarian has to show the school that s/he has an academic contribution to
make to IL work (not just preparing materials for teachers and students). The usual approach
at the outset is to seize early opportunities to work with ‘friendly teachers’ in order to show
the school what the library can contribute (‘early concrete practice’ in the language of
educational change management (see Fullan, 2007). The library contribution to IL is then
targeted on particular years in the school (often commencing with the new annual intake of
students and then extending the IL contribution to the other years over time, or starting with
the sixth form and working down through the school). The library contribution often focuses
on finding and selecting information but attention may also be given to other aspects of IL
(see table 3). This approach can occur in any school with one or more interested senior
managers and a dynamic librarian, especially if library support staff are available to free up
the librarian from ‘minding the library’ to work with teachers and get involved in curriculum
planning. The main limiting factor is lack of staff time but lack of interest amongst influential

Streatfield. Shaper, Markless and Rae-Scott. 2011. Journal of Information Literacy 5(2). 20
http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I2-2011-1
teachers can also inhibit progress. The approach is vulnerable to changes in school
priorities, the departure of key senior managers or changes in librarian.
Approach 3: Strategic orchestration
Here, the librarian is proactive in persuading senior managers and teachers to actively
embrace IL work. The early focus is on advocating IL work amongst all teachers and
encouraging teachers to take IL on board in their practice, with the librarian to the fore in
planning this work (rather than pursuing IL independently as ‘the librarian’s curriculum’). The
focus of the IL work across the school is likely to include all aspects of IL (see table 3). The
librarian needs an understanding of how students learn as well as of managing educational
change which in turn calls for a proactive and resolute approach as well as political nous.
Such librarians are usually professionally qualified and may have dual education and library
qualifications. Unlike approach 2, one or more interested senior managers will not be
enough to sustain it without the headteacher’s commitment. The success of this approach
can be limited by teacher perceptions of the role of the librarian, who must be ready to take
difficult prioriti sation decisions – which aspects of running the library will have to be
jettisoned or done less well? This approach is particularly vulnerable to changes of
headteacher but departure of the librarian should not derail the approach, since the school
will seek to recruit another librarian committed to the approach.
6. Limitations of this survey
The survey findings reported here draw sufficiently upon a wide range of UK school library IL
practice to form a basis from which to construct models of activity on the lines presented
above as ‘approaches’. However, since the survey was completed by school librarians who
elected to do so when it was drawn to their attention by a network of school library support
bodies (ranging from the Chartered Institute for Library and Information Professionals and
School Library Association to various local authority Schools Library Services) the replies
are inevitably skewed towards those who are most interested. For example, professionally-
qualified librarians are heavily over-represented in the survey returns: it would be nice to
think that half of all post-primary schools in the UK employ a professionally-qualified librarian
but this is by no means the case.
In presenting the survey findings we chose to compare replies from professionally-qualified
school librarians with those of other categories of school library manager. Although these
may be found interesting, it is important to emphasise that the survey was not based on a
random sample and all such comparisons should be treated with care. Although recognising
that the survey results cannot be taken to statistically represent the range of school library
activity, our main concern was to find out as much as possible about as many school
libraries as we could within a very tight budget. This report should be read with these
caveats in mind.

Streatfield. Shaper, Markless and Rae-Scott. 2011. Journal of Information Literacy 5(2). 21
http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I2-2011-1
7. Conclusions
IL work in UK schools cannot be said to be in a good state. The survey results suggest that
there is a wide and growing gap between the best practice and the rest, with most many
libraries relatively under-resourced and senior management support ranging from visionary
and enthusiastic through to neglect. It is hard to see how the overall situation can be much
improved unless school libraries are recognised as a statutorily required service (which looks
very unlikely in the near future).
The tendency for school library budgets at all levels from primary upwards to be shrinking
should cause concern amongst people who are interested in education of children. To be
effective and attractive, school libraries need to constantly renew their stock and invest in a
range of resources, including Internet resources. This will become increasingly more difficult
if budgets continue to decline, and that is clearly the trend at present.
It is apparent throughout the activities survey that professionally qualified school librarians
make a difference. This difference is shown clearly in the review of IL development work,
where it is apparent that a higher proportion of qualified librarians engage with IL, that they
and their graduate colleagues are more directly and proactively involved in this work and that
they again are more committed to collaborating with teachers to plan, deliver and review
lessons. A follow-up survey based on a stratified random sample of respondents would
however be required to show whether the differences emerging from the activity reports
show more than that keen librarians who complete national surveys make a difference.
The three approaches to IL described above offer a potential way forward for schools
seeking to develop their IL work. These three approaches can be seen as representing a
progression towards implementing a school-wide strategy for IL. It is important to emphasise
that such a developmental approach is not the only option. If the school is not wholly
committed to IL development (and if the library does not have sufficient staff and resources
to take on a greater challenge) then ‘sporadic opportunism’ or ‘systematic development’ may
continue to be appropriate ways of working for the future. However, if the school wants to
take on the challenge of moving towards ‘systematic development’ or aspires to embrace
‘strategic orchestration’, help can be gained from the school library self-evaluation materials
referred to earlier (Markless & Streatfield, 2004). Although now somewhat dated, these
publications are designed to help develop school libraries and should still be useful.
Resources
The full secondary, independent and special schools project report is available at
www.cilip.org.uk/schools-survey.
Specifically, for post-primary schools, the support booklet accompanying Improve your
library: a self-evaluation process for secondary school libraries and learning resource
centres offers a way of evaluating how high the pupil IL standards are (p.9), descriptions of a
typical school library at each of five levels in relation to IL (p.10), suggested actions for
improvement, examples of good practice and sources of further advice. All of these can be
found at:
http://tlfl.org.uk/englishdocuments/secondarystrategy/improvingreading/IMP/resources/downl
oads/assets/IRselfevaluationimprovelib.pdf
For primary schools, similar support and guidance can be found in pages 7-8 and 20-21 of
the parallel primary school library self-evaluation publication (Streatfield &Markless, 2004)
which can be found at:
https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/SLSEBP.pdf

Streatfield. Shaper, Markless and Rae-Scott. 2011. Journal of Information Literacy 5(2). 22
http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I2-2011-1
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Sue Ayling, Sue Bowtell, Sheila Compton, Joy Court, Sylvia
Cummings, Gareth Ellis, Anne Lehva, Sarah Masters, Wendy Pieroni, Alison Roberts, Lesley
Sharpling, Liz Smith, Anne Stevens, Laura Taylor and Carol Webb for volunteering to
undergo interviewer training and to conduct interviews as part of this project. We also wish to
thank Dr. Ross Todd, Associate Professor, School of Communication, Information and
Library Studies, Rugers University and Director of the Center for International Scholarship in
School Libraries, for commenting constructively on an earlier version of this paper.
REFERENCES
Avann, P. ed. 1985. Teaching information skills in the primary school. London: Edward
Arnold.
Barrett, L. & Douglas, J. eds. 2004. CILIP guidelines for secondary school libraries. 2
nd
. ed.
London: Facet Publishing.
Best, R., Abbott, F. & Taylor, M. 1990. Teaching skills for learning: information skills in initial
teacher education. Library and Information Research Report 78. London: The British Library
Research and Development Department.
Blanchett, H., Powis, C. & Webb, J. 2011. A guide to teaching information literacy: 101
practical tips. London: Facet Publishing.
Brown, J. 1994. ‘Developing information skills’ in Kinnell, M. Managing library resources in
schools. London: Library Association Publishing.
Carter, C. & Monaco, J. 1987. Learning information technology skills. Library and Information
Research Report 4. London: The British Library Research and Development Department.
Crawford, J.& Irving, C. 2007. ‘Information literacy: the link between secondary and tertiary
education project and its wider implications.’ Journal of Librarianship and Information
Science 39.1. March, 17-26.
Dubber, G. 2008. Cultivating curiosity: information literacy skills and the primary school
library. Swindon: School Library Association.
Dubber, G. 2008. A primary school information skills toolkit. Swindon: School Library
Association.
Gibbs, G. 1988. Learning by doing: a guide to teaching and learning methods. London:
Further Education Unit.
Fullan, M. 2007, The new meaning of educational change, Fourth edition, Teachers College
Press, New York.
Goodwin, P. & Parker, J. eds. 2008. Information literacy meets Library 2.0. London: Facet
Publishing.
Griffin, M. 1983. Study and information skills in the primary school. The British Library
Research and Development Department Report No. 5784. London: The British Library
Research and Development Department.
Heeks, P. 1989. Perspectives on a partnership: information skills and school libraries 1983-
1988. British Library Research Review 13. London: The British Library Research and
Development Department.
Herring, J.E. 1992. Information technology in schools: the role of the school librarian. 2
nd
. ed.
London: Library Association Publishing.
Herring, J.E. 1996. Teaching information skills in schools. London: Library Association
Publishing.

Streatfield. Shaper, Markless and Rae-Scott. 2011. Journal of Information Literacy 5(2). 23
http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I2-2011-1
Herring, J. E. 2004. The Internet and information skills: a guide for teachers and school
librarians. London: Facet Publishing.
Herring, J.E. 2011. Improving students’ web use and information skills: a guide for teachers
and teacher librarians. London: Facet Publishing.
Herring, J.E., Tarter, A-M & Nayler, S. 2002. ‘An evaluation of the PLUS model to develop
pupils’ information skills in a secondary school. School Libraries Worldwide 8 1, 1-24.
Hopkins, D. ed. 1987. Knowledge, information skills and the curriculum. Library and
Information Research Report 46. London: The British Library Research and Development
Department.
Howard, J. 1991. Information skills and the secondary curriculum: some practical
approaches. Library and Information Research Report 84. London: The British Library
Research and Development Department.
Irving. A. 1985. Study and information skills across the curriculum. London: Heinemann.
Irving, A. 1990. Wider horizons: on-line information services in schools. Library and
Information Research Report 80. London: The British Library Research and Development
Department.
Irving, A. & Snape, W.H. 1979. Educating information users in schools. The British Library
Research and Development Department Report No. 5467. London: The British Library
Research and Development Department.
Kinnell, M. ed. 1992. Learning resources in schools: guidelines for school libraries. London:
Library Association.
Lewis, M. & Wray, D. 1997. Writing frames: scaffolding children’s non-fiction in a range of
genres. Reading, Berks: Reading and Language Information Centre, University of Reading.
Loertscher, D.V. & Woolls, B. 2002. Information literacy: a review of the research: a guide for
practitioners and researchers. 2
nd
Edition. Salt Lake City, UT: Hi Willow Research and
Publishing.
Markless, S. ed. 2009. The innovative school librarian: working outside the box. London:
Facet Publishing.
Markless, S. & Lincoln, P. eds. 1986.Tools for learning: information skills and learning to
learn in secondary schools. BL R & D Report 5892. London: The British Library Research
and Development Department.
Markless, S. & Streatfield, D.R. 2004. Improve your library: a self-evaluation process for
secondary school libraries and learning resource centres. 2 volumes. London: Department
for Education and Skills.
Markless, S. & Streatfield, D.R. 2008. ‘Reconceptualising information literacy for the Web 2.0
environment?’ in S. Hatzipanagos and S. Warburton eds. Social software and developing
community ontologies. Hersey,Pennsylvania: IGI Global, pp. 316-334.
Markless, S. & Streatfield, D.R. with Baker, L. 1992. Cultivating information skills in further
education: eleven case studies. Library and Information Research Report 86. London: The
British Library Research and Development Department.
Markless, S. & Streatfield, D.R. with Boyd, R., Dix, P., Dunne, J. & Williams, A. 2000. School
Library Services: from survival to growth? Library and Information Commission Research
Report 49. Twickenham, Middx: Information Management Associates for the Library and
Information Commission.
Marland, M. ed. 1981. Information skills in the secondary curriculum: the recommendations
of a Working Group sponsored by the British Library and the Schools Council. London:
Methuen.
Martin, A. & Madigan, D. eds. 2006. Digital literacies for learning. London: Facet Publishing.

Streatfield. Shaper, Markless and Rae-Scott. 2011. Journal of Information Literacy 5(2). 24
http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I2-2011-1
Morrison. M. & Markless, S. 1992. Enhancing information skills in further education. The
British Library Research Paper 99. London: The British Library Research and Development
Department.
National Council for Educational Technology 1993. Information skills in action. London:
NCET.
Pain, H. 1987. School librarianship in the United Kingdom. British Library Information Guide
4. London: The British Library Research and Development Department.
Powell, R. 1991. Resources for flexible learning. The Teaching and learning series. Stafford:
Network Education Press.
Rogers. R. ed. 1994. Teaching information skills: a review of the research and its impact on
education. London: Bowker-Saur.
Rudduck, J. & Hopkins, D. 1984. The sixth form and libraries. Library and Information
Research Report No. 24. London: The British Library Research and Development
Department.
Saetre, T.P. & Willars, G. 2002. The IFLA/UNESCO school library guidelines The Hague:
International Federation of library Associations.
Scholastic Research Foundation Paper 2008. School Libraries Work! 3
rd
ed. Danbury, Conn:
Scholastic Library Publishing.
Smith, M. & Hepworth, M. 2007. An investigation of factors that may demotivate secondary
school students undertaking project work: implications for learning information literacy.
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 39.1. March, 3-15.
Streatfield, D.R. 2008. Research conducted on the use of primary school libraries to develop
the information literacy of children. Twickenham, Middx: Information Management
Associates.
Streatfield, D.R. & Markless, S. 1994. Invisible learning? The contribution of school libraries
to teaching and learning. Library and Information Research Report 98. London: The British
Library Research and Development Department.
Streatfield, D.R. & Markless, S. 2004. Improve your library: a self-evaluation process for
primary schools. London: Department for Education and Skills.
Streatfield, D.R. & Markless, S. 2007. ‘Information literacy’ in Bowman, J.H. ed. The British
Librarianship and Information Work 2001-2005 Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate.
Streatfield, D.R., Shaper, S. & Rae-Scott, S. 2010. School libraries in the UK: a worthwhile
past, a difficult present – and a transformed future? [Online] Twickenham, Middx: Information
Management Associates. Available at: www.cilip.org.uk/schools-survey
Streatfield, D.R., Shaper, S. & Rae-Scott, S. forthcoming. Secondary level school libraries
and the promotion of reading for pleasure.
Tabberer, R.E. 1987. Study and information skills in schools. The British Library R & D
Report 5870. Windsor, Berks: NFER-Nelson Publishing Co.
Tabberer, R.E. & Allman, J. 1981. Study skills at 16 plus. Research in progress No. 4.
Slough, Bucks: National Foundation for Educational Research.
Tann, S. ed. 1988. Developing topic work in the primary school. London: Falmer Press.
United Kingdom Government 2010
Literacy - epetition response. [Online]. Available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page22227
[Posted January 2010; viewed August 2010]
Valentine, P. & Nelson, B. 1988. Sneaky teaching: the role of the school librarian. Library
and Information Research Report 63. London: The British Library Research and
Development Department.

Streatfield. Shaper, Markless and Rae-Scott. 2011. Journal of Information Literacy 5(2). 25
http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I2-2011-1
Virkus, S. 2003. ‘Information literacy in Europe: a literature review.’ Information Research
8.4. July Paper no. 159. [Online]. Available at http:information.net/ir/8-4/paper159.html
Waterhouse. P. 1990. Flexible learning: an outline. The Teaching and learning series.
Stafford: Network Education Press.
Williams, D. & Coles, L. 2007. ‘Teachers’ approaches to finding and using research
evidence: an information literacy perspective.’ Educational Research. 49 2, 185-206.
Williams, D. & Wavell, C. 2001. The impact of the school library resource centre on learning.
Library and Information Commission Research Report 112. Aberdeen: Faculty of
Management, Robert Gordon University.
Williams, D., Wavell, C. & Coles, L. 2001A. Impact of school library services on achievement
and learning: critical literature review … London: DfES and Resource.
Williams, D., Wavell, C. & Coles, L. 2001B. Impact of school library services on achievement
and learning in primary schools: critical literature review … London: DfES and Resource.
Wray, D. 1985. Teaching information skills through project work. Sevenoaks, Kent: Hodder &
Stoughton and UKRA.
Wray, D. & Lewis, M. 1997. Extending literacy: children reading and writing non-fiction.
London: Routledge.