Teachers’ views of information literacy practices in secondary education: A qualitative study in the Greek educational setting

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to explore the perceptions of secondary education teachers in Greece about their students’ information literacy skills and to investigate whether teachers have incorporated some form of information literacy instruction into their teaching to help students familiarize themselves with the research process. Qualitative methods of data collection and analysis were used, as the study sought to illuminate individuals’ opinions and understanding of the meanings and values of information literacy, not quantification of responses. The primary method of data collection was semi-structured interviews. The transcripts were analysed thematically using the Atlas.ti software package. The study revealed that information literacy skills are developed in the school context chiefly by the assignment of school work or research projects. Almost all teachers were very critical of students’ information skills, but they were not fully aware of how to teach information skills, and the most common way of teaching information literacy was giving advice about specific sources. They appreciated the need to prepare information literate students but they reported various problems in their effort to apply research-based teaching. The paper provides an empirically based, enhanced understanding of students’ information literacy competencies from the teachers’ point of view. It also raises the issues of the content, structure and organization of information literacy experiences offered in the context of secondary education, from the teachers’ perspective.

Keywords

High-school students information literacy secondary education teachers

Introduction

It is well recognized that one of the main goals of secondary education in the information age is to develop information literacy (IL) skills, prepare students for further learning, and equip them with the competences that will enable them to become lifelong learners and active citizens. Information is available through different providers and multiple media, and this raises questions about its authenticity, validity and reliability. Schools should provide students with the sources and training that will enable them to become efficient and independent users of information. Research has shown that young people exhibit a tendency towards shallow and superficial searching, they usually visit a site only once and view each webpage only for a few seconds, and they prefer information in the form of short chunks rather than full-text (Williams and Rowlands, 2007). There is also evidence that while information technology (IT) skills are improving, students are less competent in searching for and using curriculum-based information (Combes, 2009a, 2009b), and enter higher education or the workplace without analytical skills and abilities such as critical thinking, decision making and self-directed learning (Abell and Ward, 2000; Dawson et al., 2006; Donnelly and Craddock, 2002; Foresight ICM Panel, 2000; Mutch, 1997).

A number of studies stress the importance of developing IL programmes for students and designing curricula that take into account the need for IL training (Branch, 2002; Burhanna and Jensen, 2006; Hay, 2004; Heider, 2009; Julien and Barker, 2009; Kong, 2008; Lankshear and Bigum, 1999; Lanning and Turner, 2010; Mclelland and Crawford, 2004; Magara and Bukirwa, 2004; Mardis, 2003). Teachers should incorporate IL instruction into their teaching, in order to help students develop research skills and successfully complete research assignments. As is widely accepted, research assignments promote thinking, clarify ideas and generate reasons. According to Burton and Chadwick (2000), the most frequently used writing assignments, across disciplines and across genres, require the use of sources beyond the course textbook. School assignments should give students the opportunity to identify authoritative resources; use information technology; exercise critical thinking and analysis skills; and construct a research paper using appropriate referencing, bibliographic style and respect for others’ intellectual property (Bowers et al., 2009).

Greece, however, has been rather slow in developing an IL framework for primary and secondary education. Secondary education in Greece consists of two cycles: the lower secondary education provided by gymnasium (middle school) and the upper secondary education provided by general lyceum (high school) and vocational schools. The study in each cycle lasts three years. In gymnasium, attendance starts at the age of 13 and in lyceum pupils enroll at the age of 15. The aim of the lyceum is

to develop the pupils’ all-round skills and abilities and to prepare them for a responsible role in modern society. The system’s main characteristics are the emphasis on general education and the wide opportunities it offers for horizontal and vertical transfer to other equivalent or higher levels of the education system. (National Centre for Vocational Education (EKEP), 2003)

The educational system has been characterized as rather ‘centralized’, ‘bureaucratic’ and ‘authoritarian’ (Chrysos, 2000; Ifanti, 2000; Kazamias, 1990), as it is strictly controlled and supervised by the Ministry of Education. Primary and secondary schools have a uniform and a national curriculum, which is centrally designed by the Pedagogical Institute and the Ministry. There is a standardized syllabus and a single, centrally-issued, compulsory textbook for each subject. Teachers have to ensure that each classroom will cover the authorized material and teaching is generally limited to specific knowledge and skills defined in the curriculum (Kynigos, 2001; Papagueli-Vouliouris, 1999; Vosniadou and Kollias, 2001). At the end of the upper secondary school, students take a nationally administered entrance exam for university, and because examination results generally affect students’ future life, great emphasis is given to the material that will be tested. Instruction is teacher centred, students do not have the opportunity to write research papers often, and schools lack adequate library facilities. The fact that instruction is teacher centred, means the whole education process focuses on the instructor. Teachers deliver lectures and choose topics while students, as passive recipients of information, listen and work alone (Cuban, 1993; Grubb, 1999). The teacher-centred environment does not support independent work of students, or collaboration among students. Student autonomy and initiative are not encouraged.

It is worth mentioning, however, that in 2011 the Greek Ministry of Education set new objectives for the school of the 21st century. According to them, the content of learning, the educational materials and the proposed activities will be developed with an emphasis on general skills that will be acquired by students in order to be able to live as democratic citizens in both the Greek and the international communities (Ministry of Education, Lifelong Learning and Religious Affairs, 2011). Under this perspective, there is a shift towards more student-centred and ‘inductive’ approaches to teaching and learning, such as the inquiry-based method, which engages students in the investigation of questions and real-world problems that are important to them (Abrams et al., 2008; Caine et al., 2005; Spronken-Smith and Harland, 2009). Such methods have their roots in constructivism, which posits that learning is an active process and that knowledge is part of the knower and relative to his/her experiences with his/her environment. Constructivist theory holds that the individual acts on objects and events and gains understanding by his/her own perception of the world as he or she experiences it. In contrast, traditional theories of learning emphasize the passive acceptance of knowledge that is transmitted by teachers and documented in textbooks. Information literacy enables students to become independent users of information, so it plays a key role in the development of student-centred environments, where students are encouraged to use a variety of sources to exploit information and create knowledge rather than simply use prescribed textbooks and memorize knowledge delivered by teachers (Peters et al., 2007; Warmkessel and McCade, 1997).

Even though Greek secondary education is now promoting – at least in theory – independent learning, as well as the skills of seeking, gathering and using information ethically, the extent of IL implementation is not known at the moment, mainly because schools have not included IL instruction in a systematic and coherent way across the curriculum. In addition, to the best of our knowledge, nothing has been written so far about teachers’ views regarding the IL skills of their students, or about how teachers help students develop and apply research skills to class assignments. Both students and teachers do not seem to be acquainted with the concept of information literacy, or to be familiar with its significance. It is also very common that people generally, and teachers in particular, consider young people information literate, because they are skilful when using IT for personal communications or amusement. Many students and educators do not realize the difference between being technology proficient and information literate (Macklin, 2001), while fluency with technology often gives students the false impression that they are information literate enough to handle the variety of sources (Fitzgerald, 2004).

In the light of the situation described above, the aim of the present study was to capture a broad picture of students’ information skills from the teachers’ point of view and to investigate whether teachers have incorporated some form of IL instruction into their teaching to help students familiarize themselves with the research process. More specifically, the study aimed to obtain information about the following issues:

How do teachers develop their students’ IL skills through means such as the use of assignments?

How do students find and use information for these assignments?

How do teachers rate students’ IL competence?

How do teachers conceptualize integration of IL into their teaching?

The study focused on teachers, because they are the primary agents for the successful implementation of IL education and play a decisive role in the promotion and achievement of information literacy, due to their direct and constant interaction with students (Mar-Rounds, 2011). The study acts in a way as supplementary to previous research on high-school teachers in Greece (Korobili et al., 2011) and attempts to give a more complete picture of Greek high-school reality. It is expected to contribute to the limited knowledge available concerning teachers’ perceptions of IL. It also raises the issues of the content, structure and organization of IL experiences offered in the context of secondary education, from the teachers’ perspective.

Results of the study can be exploited by librarians in developing IL courses for both students and teachers. Knowing how teachers perceive IL, how they implement it in the classroom, what resources are available to them, and what problems they encounter, will help librarians design training programmes targeted to the special needs of school environment. Library professionals can contribute significantly to developing ‘information literate school communities’ (Henri cited in Moore, 2002) and inculcating IL in students. They can explicitly teach IL to students, offer in-service training to teachers, provide support and give assistance in the development of lesson plans and assignments, teach cooperatively with teachers in the classrooms, and catalyse the integration of IL in the curriculum (Moore, 2002). The development of school library programmes can be collaborative endeavours between school librarians and academic librarians, or faculty of library schools, a practice common to other countries (Burhanna and Jensen, 2006; Martorana et al., 2001).

Literature review

There are many conceptions and definitions of IL. One of the most acknowledged definitions is that provided by the American Library Association (ALA), which defined IL as the ability to recognize an information need and to find, evaluate and make effective use of the needed information (American Library Association, 1998). Many authors have expanded on this definition in an effort to better delineate the concept, describe IL outcomes, and provide a framework for IL education (Langford, 1998; Owusu-Ansah, 2005). In their Big6 skills approach, Eisenberg and Berkowitz (1990) adopted the characteristics of IL as expressed by ALA and emphasized the importance of using information problem-solving skills across situations. They developed a model that is primarily aimed at school students and promotes the acquisition of skills necessary to solve information problems. Doyle (1992) defined IL in terms of attributes of the information literate person, while Bruce (1997) developed a relational model of how IL is viewed by information users themselves. Kuhlthau’s work has been particular influential in highlighting that IL is not just about recognizing when information is needed, but also involves the ability to construct knowledge (Kuhlthau, 1996). According to this approach, IL is not just a cluster of skills, but a process of learning that fosters deep understanding and student engagement. Kuhlthau (1991) saw this process as consisting of six steps: (1) task initiation, (2) topic selection, (3) prefocus exploration, (4) focus formulation, (5) information collection, and (6) search closure. The information search process (ISP) describes users’ holistic experience as a series of thoughts, feelings and actions. In the first stage, feelings of uncertainty and apprehension are common, while in the selection stage, optimism evolves. In the exploration stage, information seekers feel confusion, frustration and doubt. In the formulation stage, uncertainty diminishes as confidence, optimism and a sense of clarity increase. In the next stage, feelings of confidence continue to increase and finally, in the presentation stage, a sense of satisfaction or dissatisfaction occurs, depending on the outcome of the search. The main contribution of Kuhlthau’s work is that she offered a new perspective for thinking about IL education and encouraged librarians to collaborate with teachers and adopt a constructivist, inquiry-based approach to teaching, for the accomplishment of five kinds of learning: ‘information literacy, learning how to learn, curriculum content, literacy competence and social skills’ (Kuhlthau, 2010: 22).

Several studies focus on the role of teachers in helping pupils develop such skills. Branch (2002) suggests that teachers and teacher librarians need to be prepared for teaching pupils the information-seeking process in both print and electronic environments. The preparation of information literate teachers, capable of transmitting IL skills to their students, is the topic of many studies. A number of articles report on specific programmes aiming at integrating IL into teacher education curricula (Asselin and Lee, 2002; Earp, 2009; Emmons et al., 2009; Floyd et al., 2008; Hobbs and Aspland, 2003; Kovalik et al., 2010). Many of these efforts were the result of collaboration between librarians and faculty, and despite the problems and barriers encountered by their initiators, they have been really successful. Asselin (2005), for instance, described how the incorporation of modules on IL into teacher education resulted in student teachers feeling more prepared to teach IL at school. Still, there is concern in the literature about future teachers’ preparedness to convey information competences to their students. Johnson and O’English (2003) compiled an annotated bibliography of articles dealing with IL in teacher education. In a metasynthesis of the literature, that updated and expanded Johnson and O’English’s (2003) work, Duke and Ward (2009) found that although teacher education programmes addressed IL issues, many pre-service teachers were not adequately prepared to teach IL skills in their own classrooms.

Other studies focus on in-service teachers’ understanding of IL and how or if IL skills are being taught by them. Although teachers may have creative ideas about how to best use IL in different situations, for different types of assignments and in different subject areas (Davis-Kahl and Payne, 2003), there is evidence that in many cases teaching of IL skills has not been introduced explicitly in the curriculum (Combes, 2009b; Lonsdale and Armstrong, 2006; Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005; Probert, 2009; Walraven et al., 2008). Williams and Wavell’s (2006) study surveyed 31 teachers from eight local authorities in the United Kingdom and revealed that teachers had little confidence in their ability to help students develop IL skills even though they recognized the importance of such skills. Merchant and Hepworth (2002) found that although the teachers they interviewed were information literate, their skills with and attitudes towards information were not being transferred to their students. Burton and Chadwick (2000) reported that the fact that teachers were assigning research papers without giving instruction for source evaluation, might be indicative of their belief that they were not responsible for teaching students how to conduct research. School teachers are also reported to mistake IL for basic reading and text understanding skills (Probert, 2009; Williams and Wavell, 2006). Ismail et al. (2012) investigated teachers’ perspectives on IL education. Teachers believed that IL education was important and had the potential to make teaching and learning activities more involving and fun but they did not seem to really understand IL or to be aware of the way to properly implement IL in the classroom, due to lack of relevant training. A study referring to Greek high-school teachers (Korobili et al., 2011) found that most of the teachers did not use any information resources, especially electronic ones, and they were rather inadequate in helping students attain a level of IL.

On the other hand, high-school students seem to be competent users of technology. According to Ladbrook and Probert’s (2011) study most teachers believed that a significant number of their students were better informed about, faster and more skillful in using social networking pages, games or in downloading music, films, etc. However, some teachers in the study did have concerns about students’ ability to critique, synthesize and report research findings. Williamson et al.’s (2007) project indicated that students’ confidence in their information-seeking skills was not always well founded. Evidence presented by Herring (2006) showed that students had a preference for electronic sources of information over printed ones, but they did not have a strong sense of confidence in their ability to do a good assignment. According to Francke et al. (2011) students experienced a conflict between relying on sources that they considered appropriate for school assignments and interpreted as sources focusing on facts, versus the sources they were required to include in a specific assignment they were given, which they believed contained opinions rather than facts. Students also seemed to consider the assessment of information sources a highly complex task and they preferred to rely on an authority they trusted or on sources that had been corroborated by other sources (Francke et al., 2011).

Method

Qualitative methods of data collection and analysis were used, as the study sought to illuminate individuals’ opinions and understanding of the meanings and values of IL, not quantification of responses (Hoepfl, 1997). The primary method of data collection was semi-structured interviews. A semi-structured interview guide with the questions, topics and issues to be covered was created, but questions were rephrased or explained if clarification was needed. The main advantage of semi-structured interviews is that the guide used to specify the issues to be covered in the interview increases the comprehensiveness of the data and makes data collection more methodical and systematic (Cohen et al., 2000). The first part of the guide contained demographic information. The remaining questions solicited information about the assignments given by teachers, the information-seeking behaviour of students and the extent to which teachers incorporated elements of IL into their teaching. The order in which the questions were asked and the exact wording of the questions were left to the researcher’s discretion, and additional questions could be asked. Interviews were conducted at the end of the spring semester 2012. All interviews lasted approximately 30 to 45 minutes and were carried out in a private space within schools. With the participant’s permission a digital recorder was used to record each interview.

Participants

A total of 21 high-school teachers, from 10 schools in the urban area of Thessaloniki participated in the interviews. While in quantitative studies the main sampling method is probability sampling, which enables generalization of the research findings to the entire population under investigation, the most appropriate sampling strategy for qualitative studies is purposeful sampling, because it seeks information-rich cases which can be thoroughly studied (Patton, 2002). School sites were nearly evenly divided among the two main regions of Thessaloniki, the Eastern and the Western. These two areas in a way reflect the economic division of the society of Thessaloniki. Eastern Thessaloniki has been traditionally inhabited by the middle class, while western neighbourhoods are generally considered to have a lower socioeconomic standing, since they are largely populated by immigrants and working-class people. In addition, the most experienced teachers are appointed in the eastern suburbs, while the younger ones usually teach in the western province. Principals within each school selected the subjects to participate based on their experience with research assignments. Both teachers who worked with research projects or who required students to assign class-related papers and teachers who avoided assigning research papers were selected. Teachers represented a range of subject specialities. Participation in the study was voluntary and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Individuals were assured of confidentiality and data were coded with numbers instead of names of individuals or schools.

Data analysis

Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim by three researchers. The transcripts were analysed thematically using the Atlas.ti software package. Thematic analysis is a method for identifying, describing and analysing ideas, or themes, within the data. A theme is at minimum an observation of a pattern and, at maximum an explanation and interpretation of a phenomenon (Boyatzis, 1998). Themes are then encoded with descriptive codes (Guest et al., 2012). A code ‘is most often a word or short phrase that symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative attribute for a portion of […] data’ (Saldana, 2013: 3). Codes, thus, act as labels of the thematic observation, and connect the data to the analyst’s idea about them (Boyatzis, 1998). One of the advantages of thematic analysis over other qualitative methods is its independence of theory and epistemology, which offers considerable flexibility and makes it suitable for use as a research tool in a variety of theoretical contexts (Braun and Clarke, 2006).

Themes within the data can be identified in either an inductive or a deductive approach (Braun and Clarke, 2006). In the inductive approach the themes or patterns are rooted in the data themselves and the coding process is data driven (Patton, 2002). Deductive analysis, on the other hand, is theory driven and linked to the ‘researcher’s theoretic or analytic interest in the area’ (Braun and Clarke, 2006: 84). In the present study, theme identification followed the inductive approach and codes were developed without adhering to a predetermined coding plan or the investigators’ theoretical assumptions. The identification of themes was to a large extent determined by the questions asked.

The analysis of data was based on the examination of participants’ responses. Before coding, the research team agreed upon the rationale that should underlie the assignment of codes, and the basic principles of coding procedure. Two researchers read and re-read the transcripts, and developed a list of coding categories and subcategories, on the basis of the objectives of the survey and the patterns appearing in the text. A sample of nearly 20% of the transcriptions was selected and independently coded by two members of the team. The sets of codes that each coder assigned to these transcriptions were compared. A theme was considered to be coded the same if both coders used the same code(s). This method indicated a high level of inter-coder agreement, as nearly 95% of the transcripts were coded the same by the two researchers.

Results

A total of 21 teachers participated in the study. Of those, five were male and 16 female. The average number of years the participating teachers had been teaching was approximately 43 years, with a range from 32 to 58 years. Their mean teaching experience was 12 years (ranged from four to 23 years).

The thematic structure that emerged from the interviews is presented below. Findings are described under the codes of the categories and subcategories developed. Representative quotes are used as examples from the raw data. Sources of quotations are coded as P1–21.

Training in IL skills

IL skills are developed in the school context chiefly through the assignment of school work or research projects. Almost all teachers systematically assign school work of different types and levels of complexity. This usually includes simple tasks, such as finding information about topics, persons, historical periods or literary movements. In some cases, the assignments are more demanding, they require students to find answers to questions, to synthesize and critically present information. Most teachers believe that assignments have many advantages over traditional teaching methods (Figure 1): they promote learning, familiarize students with the research process, help them understand and internalize information instead of memorizing it, and improve critical thinking abilities. Group assignments foster team work and cooperation. They keep all students, even the less able, actively engaged in the learning process and motivated. Multidisciplinary assignments help students realize the interconnections and complementarity between different scientific domains and that knowledge is multifaceted. In addition, assignments offer teachers the opportunity to move away from mandated textbooks and to provide a diversity of learning experiences.

I think that assignments promote the learning process, because when they search for information on their own, students learn much better, they consolidate knowledge more efficiently. They also realize that textbooks are not the only source from which they can learn. Of equal importance is interdisciplinarity, students realize that there are no bounds to knowledge. (P4)

Assignments allow children to explore new topics, they give them the opportunity to address an issue they thought they knew everything about, and eventually recognize that there exist many other dimensions, which they had never thought of until now, that there is room to discover more things about this particular topic. (P7)

Teachers said that they guided students in their quest for information (Figure 2): they gave them guidance on how to address the topic of the assignment, where to focus, and what aspects to cover. They also gave directions on where and how to look for information. Some of them, though not many, tried to infuse the value of libraries and they occasionally organized visits to the school or public library, in order to help students become familiar with libraries and their use. It should be noted that the majority of schools investigated did not have a school library and the few that had one lacked professional librarians.

Yes, I encourage them to use the library. We have a pretty good school library and I urge them to visit it regularly. I sometimes bring the class to the library to teach them the processes of finding books for their class work. I try to persuade them that libraries and reading expand their knowledge and widen their horizons. (P18)

In order to ensure that the correct information is used, many respondents preferred to recommend specific sources which they had previously checked for their relevance and quality. Some teachers claimed that they suggested specific books as a way of getting students to use printed materials in addition to the Internet.

I usually tell them where to search. I give them 5–6 sites or a list of books. I give them the exact sources I expect them to use, the ones I have already checked and I am sure they are appropriate. (P12)

I suggest specific books from the library, I even lend them books from my own collection … otherwise they will use the Web and nothing else. (P2)

Another aspect of guidance provided by teachers is concerned with the notion of credible resources. More specifically, respondents stated that they tried to give students advice on how to evaluate web information. They usually referred to some of the generally known criteria used for the evaluation of web information. They prompted students to read the URL carefully, to determine the type of domain the web page came from, to look for the name of the author or the organization that claimed responsibility for the page. They also told students to look at the date of creation or revision, in order to determine the currency of the content. Some teachers, however, argued that they did not discuss the issue of evaluation thoroughly, because their knowledge was inadequate and fragmentary. It addition, it was revealed that they had not been taught how to evaluate sources in a scientific way. Their knowledge on this topic was mostly empirical.

I don’t teach them explicitly how to evaluate websites, because, to be honest, I don’t know the criteria myself. I just talk about just because something is on the Internet doesn’t mean it contains good information. The Internet is not reliable, and some information might be invalid or out of date. I insist that they shouldn’t believe everything they find, without first examining its accuracy. (P14)

I don’t teach evaluation skills systematically. I tell them than many of the things they find on the Internet are not reliable, they must somehow do a cross-check. I tell them, for instance, to see if the website is .com, .edu, or .org. Or, in Wikipedia, I advise them to check if there are references at the end of the article, in the Greek version usually there aren’t, so I tell them to have a look at the English version too, where more people have contributed to an article and the documentation is better. (P9)

The issue of the proper citing of sources is also tackled by most teachers in their effort to transfer IL skills in the classroom. The respondents stated that they explained – though not in much detail – what plagiarism was and how it could be avoided. They talked about the role of bibliography in a research report and they gave practical tips on creating bibliographies or reference lists. Yet, it seems that students do not really understand the notion of plagiarism.

I explain why they should include a bibliography in their papers. I tell them that everything they write must be properly documented. I refer to the issue of plagiarism, I tell them that they can’t use the information they find in a book or on the Web without saying who originally wrote it. The copy and paste technique is unacceptable, it violates the rights of the creator, it’s unethical and it makes them guilty of intellectual thievery. Some students understand this, others don’t. (P2)

Teachers’ perceptions about students’ IL skills

The number and types of sources students consulted depended on the assignment they had to hand in and the directions they received from their teachers. Information-seeking behaviour of students is depicted in Figure 3. It seems that many of the respondents tried to draw students’ attention to both print and electronic material, but in most cases the Internet prevailed. Only two out of the 21 respondents said that books were most widely used, one respondent argued that use was split 50/50 between books and the Internet, while the rest of the participants stressed the predominance of the Internet as the primary information source. According to them, students had many reasons why they preferred the Internet, with the main ones being perceived ease of use; speed and ease of access; wealth of information; and perceived enjoyment.

It’s easier for them and less time-consuming to search the Internet at home, at their convenient time. (P19)

Because it takes time to search for books in the library, they prefer the Internet, it’s easier. They are not familiarized with books, they find them difficult to use. Entering a keyword leads them to an unparalleled wealth of information, this is what fascinates them. (P11)

Some teachers expressed concern about this overreliance on the Internet and claimed that they made efforts to expose learners to different types of sources.

Many teachers try to find assignment topics that do not require extensive Internet use. They’re trying to ‘release’ children from the Internet, to put the emphasis on school library materials, so that the Internet complements books and it doesn’t replace them. (P17)

Sometimes, however, the Internet seemed the only option for students, due to the serious deficiencies of libraries.

Last year I urged them to use print resources. We went together to the public library, but there were very few books on the topic we investigated, most of them out of date, so we turn to the Internet. (P10)

Although I try to encourage them to use books, we often reach a dead end. School libraries don’t really work, or they are staffed by unskilled personnel. Then, it depends on how close the public library is. However, no matter what we say, the Internet is so attractive that prevails over any other source. (P20)

Some participants commented upon students having basic technology skills, centred around specific applications, while others pointed out that learners were very experienced users of ICT and knew more things than their teachers. Their comments on students’ skill depended on how efficient teachers themselves were at using computers and the Internet.

Most of them have basic knowledge, they know how to do specific things, for instance how to make a PowerPoint presentation, send an email, use Facebook … nothing more. (P2)

I see that students are very capable of using computers. They can do amazing things with them, they can do almost everything. They actually use the Internet much better than us. (P9)

When it came to the ability to retrieve information relevant to the assignments, however, interviewees were not very satisfied with their students. They believed that students could not effectively use ICT tools for research and learning across the curriculum.

They can very easily use the Internet to find information for their favourite groups, their personal interests, or, for their entertainment, but they don’t know how to use it in order to carry out a research task. (P6)

More specifically, respondents argued that students had difficulties in finding the appropriate information sources, and that their starting point for any search was Google and Wikipedia. Even when specific sources were given to them, they were unable to locate information relevant to the research or study topic. According to some participants, students could not define the topic, choose keywords, modify their initial search if it was proven inefficient, or employ advanced search techniques.

First of all they don’t know how to formulate the research question, what keywords to use in order to express their topic. Then, they don’t know where to search. They need guidance. The first thing they think of is Google. When they need background information, the first thing they think of is Wikipedia. (P4)

It’s very common for them to use only one keyword or phrase. They don’t try to change the order of the terms, or to use a similar word that will help them a little more. The way they are searching is quite superficial. (P19)

Four participants said that the biggest problem they have identified was that students were unable to determine the relevance of information. They also believed that students had problems synthesizing information from different sources to create a unified and coherent paper.

Their big problem is that they don’t know how to establish the relevance of the information they found. They don’t filter out irrelevant information about the topic. I tried to help them understand what is relevant and what is not, but not systematically, I can’t say I have dealt consistently with this issue, it needs a lot of work, is not simple …. (P5)

Of the twenty kids I had last year, only five were seriously involved and followed what we had said. With the rest, tasks were hastily produced. They failed to link the various pieces of information and make their text coherent. (P16)

When I asked them to find information about the Roman emperor Nero, one student brought a newspaper article in which it was written that the former prime minister, like a new Nero, destroyed Greece. (P20)

Almost all teachers were very critical of students’ evaluation skills. They believed that students had not developed the skills necessary to assess what they found on the Web; they tended to use the first result that Google came up with, without considering the credibility of the source. Some teachers attributed this failure to the lack of adequate training. Others argued that although they stressed in the classroom the importance of applying specific criteria for the evaluation of Internet sources, students were not willing to use them systematically.

They usually use the first or the second source they find in Google. They’re using it without examining who created the site, who is responsible for it, unless I tell them to do so. Otherwise, they don’t make any effort to assess the credibility of the sources, the accuracy of the information, or its usefulness for the topic. (P19)

Their evaluation skills are not well developed because they have not been trained. I make some remarks concerning the quality of Internet information, but this cannot be considered as formal training. (P18)

I devote one or two lessons to explaining the searching process and the criteria we usually use to evaluate Web information. Students, however, scarcely use these criteria, they just look at the first page of Google search results and they pick the one that seems more relevant. (P2)

Some respondents indicated that students actually used only one or two criteria to evaluate Internet resources – currency and authority.

I think that they somehow evaluate the sites they are using. I’d say they find it intriguing and exciting. They look at the author of the site and when the information was created. (P11)

One criterion I think they use is timeliness, whether the information is up-to-date. Mostly this. I believe this is the most common criterion. (P17)

The majority of the respondents, however, argued that, when systematically taught, students were very receptive to learning essential research skills as well as applying this set of skills in carrying out their tasks. Moreover, other factors, such as teacher’s personality and enthusiasm, or the subject of the assignment contribute to students’ task involvement, engagement with information and IL learning.

To a large extent it depends on the teacher, I mean how knowledgeable, enthusiastic and prepared he or she is … It is amazing what students can do when you show them what to do and how to do it. (P20)

When homework is relevant to their interests, and thought provoking, we see that students are more eager to work on tools and strategies addressed in the class, and actually they are doing much better. (P15)

Barriers to effective IL training

Lack of training for teachers emerged as one of the main factors inhibiting IL implementation in the Greek school system. Most teachers felt untrained and insecure in their ability to teach IL. They especially considered themselves unqualified to facilitate their students’ development as effective users and evaluators of online information, because they had never the opportunity to receive adequate training in this area.

It’s a completely new situation for us, I don’t think we have been adequately prepared for this task, we’re troubled by uncertainty, we’re rather blindfolded as regards students’ training in specific information literacy skills. (P4)

Another problem teachers encountered in their effort to apply research-based teaching was the urgent need to cover the authorized curriculum in a limited period of time and the emphasis placed by secondary education in Greece on students’ preparation for university entrance examination.

There is a direct conflict between research-based teaching and the overall educational system, which is highly examination-centred. Especially in the last year of high school, we have to ensure that all our teaching aims at preparing students to achieve high grades in exams. (P12)

The typical school day did not allow enough time for effective IL instruction. In addition, teachers needed time to prepare and coordinate the assignments and students needed time to accomplish them. Time was not only scarce, but also hard to manage, due to unfamiliarity with time-management techniques. As one respondent pointed out:

In the project last year I had a hard time trying to manage my time. I divided the students into four groups, which was too many for me to have the charge and direction of. (P13)

Although all schools had computer labs, and the majority of students owned or had ready access to a computer and an Internet connection, there were still some infrastructure problems mentioned by the teachers. The standard computer lab was commonly used in schools. However, low computer-student ratio, unstable network connections, and difficulties in scheduling the use of the computer lab carefully, all posed barriers to using IT on a continual basis as part of the curriculum. Another inhibiting factor mentioned by some teachers related to the fact that school libraries were in general inadequately equipped and organized.

When many people are online at the same time, the Internet may be disconnected. The computer lab might not be available when you need it, because another course is taught there. And most importantly, the school library is a bit neglected; it can hardly be used by students for their assignments. (P19)

Teachers’ opinions about IL instruction

All teachers interviewed were aware of how important the capability to find and use information was. They appreciated the need to prepare students to effectively cope with the abundant and diverse information available today. They had, however, different opinions about how IL education should be implemented in the school setting. For their attitudes and opinions towards IL training as well as the barriers they encounter when it comes to teaching essential IL skills see Figure 4. Most of the respondents supported the idea that the preferred or more feasible method for developing students’ information skills was the incorporation of IL instruction into existing courses, while fewer expressed preference for distinctive IL courses alongside the curriculum. The majority of the respondents regarded course assignments as a powerful tool, giving students the opportunity to explore and reflect upon information sources.

The ideal would be to teach these skills in a separate course, but because this is probably not possible, we could achieve it even in the context of individual courses. (P8)

Information literacy should be embedded into the courses we teach, not as a separate course. I think that, if carefully organized, project-based learning could help a lot. (P17)

Respondents also argued that the responsibility for teaching IL should be assigned to teachers, provided they received proper on-the-job training.

I think that the most appropriate are the teachers, because they are the subject experts. They are aware of the basic sources on the specific subject, they have even used them themselves. The ideal situation, of course, would be to assign this responsibility to a teacher who has attended the necessary seminars or workshops and is qualified. (P10)

I believe that teachers are the most appropriate for this task, because they have direct contact with children, they know the subject of the course, and where to put the emphasis. (P9)

One participant supported the idea of creating a team with teachers of various subjects, who, after getting the proper training, could assume the responsibility of training other teachers:

I think that teachers of all disciplines could actually contribute [to IL education]. So I say let’s create a core, well-trained team, the members of which will convey this experience to others and act as multipliers. (P12)

Responses also revealed that teachers often underestimated the amount of knowledge and expertise required to teach information skills or the time and effort necessary to build effective IL education programmes.

I believe it would be enough if one teacher devoted the first three or four lessons to train his or her students in the research process. (P9)

Next year I’ll be more experienced in handling this issue and I’ll devote the introductory lessons to this particular subject. (P6)

These views were associated with their perceptions about the content and the scope of IL. It was evident that the participants equated IL with technological literacy, or with the ability to search the Internet and find relevant sources.

I think that every teacher, regardless of speciality, can suggest five to six resources related to the subject of the course or the assignment. (P6)

If we were better Internet users, we would be able to direct students to the specific sites they can use to answer their research questions. (P1)

… perhaps the teacher of informatics [would be the most appropriate to teach IL] because he is the expert in the field. (P20)

Discussion

It seems that the changes in the content and methods of teaching recently introduced in secondary education have resulted in more student-centred and inquiry-based approaches. Almost all teachers in our study systematically assigned school work of different types and levels of complexity. They believed that assignments promoted learning and improved critical thinking skills. They also felt responsible for guiding students in their quest for information. (Asselin, 2005) found that more than half of the teachers she surveyed considered themselves responsible for teaching IL, while Branch (2003) and Probert (2009) indicated that teachers were very positive in transmitting IL skills to students. On the other hand, Burton and Chadwick (2000) reported that many teachers did not feel responsible for teaching students how to conduct research.

Most teachers in the present study were concerned about their students’ competence to locate, evaluate and use information effectively. They believed that students had certain technology skills, but they were not satisfied with their ability to define a research topic, locate relevant information sources, use advanced retrieval techniques and assess what they find on the Web. Information literacy studies have shown that students lack IL skills, especially those skills associated with the critical evaluation of sources (Julien and Barker, 2009; Smith et al., 2013; Sundin and Francke, 2009). Although respondents identified problems in students’ information skills, they generally did not see IL as a central part of their teaching. What they usually did was recommend sources students could trust for their assignments, since they had been previously checked for their relevance, quality and credibility. Some of them were sceptical about Internet sources and suggested specific books as a way to familiarize students with book reading and reduce their dependence on the internet. They also gave some advice on how to evaluate e-resources, but they did not think they were competent enough to go deeper in this topic. There is evidence in the literature that IL is frequently not treated by teachers as an object of learning. Merchant and Hepworth (2002) found that teachers were not fully aware of how to teach information skills, while Limberg and Sundin (2006) reported that the most common way of teaching IL in school was giving advice about specific sources or about the order in which students should use different kinds of sources during their information seeking. There is also evidence that critical evaluation of sources is seldom addressed by teachers (Limberg and Folkesson cited in Francke and Sundin, 2012), while in the study conducted by Francke and Sundin (2012) teachers believed that credibility of sources was not always discussed in the class thoroughly enough.

Overall conclusions drawn from the interviews conducted with teachers show that most of them did not feel able to teach IL skills, especially the higher-level skills of evaluating, interpreting, synthesizing and using information. These results seem to confirm the previous study conducted by Korobili et al. (2011) about the IL skills of Greek high-school teachers, where teachers were found to be rather poor at assisting students in attaining IL learning goals. They are also consistent with the findings of other studies, such as those by Williams and Wavell (2006) and Burton and Chadwick (2000), which revealed that teachers had little confidence in their ability to help students develop IL skills. In addition, Merchant and Hepworth (2002) found that teachers’ skills were not transferred to their pupils.

Respondents considered that they needed training in order to integrate technology and IL skills into teaching. In a number of previous studies proper training emerged as one of the main factors affecting teachers’ perceptions towards IL as well as their ability and willingness to teach IL in their classrooms. Branch (2003) pointed out that after immersing pre-service teachers in an IL learning environment, they were better able to define IL and imagine how they could teach it to their future students. Many teachers interviewed by Probert (2009) stated how much they would welcome appropriate training in order to help their students develop better skills.

Apart from the absence of IL-specific training, other problems encountered by teachers in their efforts to implement IL teaching were lack of time, urgent need to cover the prescribed material and prepare students for exams, low computer-student ratio and unstable network connection. All the above factors have been mentioned by previous research (Ismail et al., 2012).

Conclusions

It has become a cliché to say that the digital environment and specifically the Internet has changed the conditions for IL and has influenced the education system. In this study we have explored the perceptions of teachers in high schools located in the urban area of Thessaloniki about their students’ IL skills and the extent of IL instruction they provide to their students. It has been demonstrated that teachers perceive IL teaching in a rather narrow sense, giving emphasis to the basic skills of locating, evaluating and using information. They seem to miss the fact that the goal of IL education should be to develop not only the lower level IL competencies to use retrieval tools and construct search strategies, but also the higher level ability to incorporate selected information into one’s knowledge base and create new knowledge. Interviews with study participants made evident that no explicit teaching of IL skills or abilities has been introduced into the Greek curriculum, something that has been also reported in studies in other countries (Lonsdale and Armstrong, 2006; Probert, 2009). Although teachers give students opportunities to work with information, they seem to lack a full understanding of the concept of IL or of the array of skills associated with it. This is probably the reason for underestimating the knowledge and experience required to teach IL, and for equating IL with basic reading or with IT skills. These results are in line with the results of previous studies (Ismail et al., 2012; Probert, 2009; Williams and Weavell, 2006). However, interviewees argued that teachers should have the responsibility for teaching IL, provided they received proper training. There were different opinions regarding the method of teaching IL. Some considered that it would be more effective to incorporate IL instruction into each course, while others expressed preference for a distinct course dedicated to IL issues.

It is difficult to generalize the results of this study beyond the present setting, and it is necessary to conduct further studies in order to make comparisons and generalizations. A replication of the study, with the same or similar questions, in other samples of teacher population, may add to the weight of the present findings. Follow-up studies could further investigate some or all of the factors examined in the present study and address a number of new issues. For instance, a factor that could be researched is teachers’ Internet-related attitudes. As Chou (2003) stated, if we believe that teachers are the key persons for the successful implementation of Internet use in high school then teachers’ beliefs concerning computers and IT should be taken into consideration.

The findings of the present study clearly suggest the need to embed IL instruction into secondary education, with IL learning outcomes being incorporated in the curriculum. Professional development opportunities, on-the-job training and guidance will increase teachers’ ability to support IL training. Of equal significance is the integration of IL instruction into teacher education programmes. Future teachers need to become information literate for their own success and also be taught how to transfer these skills and abilities to their students (Branch, 2003; Carr, 1998; Hinchliffe, 2003). The nature of the tasks assigned to students is a decisive factor affecting their engagement with information (Merchant and Hepworth, 2002). Problem-based assignments, that are not descriptive in nature but instead require students to work with information in a more active and critical way, encourage the development of advanced information competences. Teachers should emphasize the need to evaluate information sources in a systematic fashion, and provide more comprehensive training on this issue.

The literature provides evidence for the advantages of secondary and tertiary education working together in a coordinated way to develop IL programmes (Burhanna and Jensen, 2006; Davis-Kahl and Payne, 2003; Ercegovac, 2003; Mokhtar and Majid, 2006). More specifically, Lonsdale and Armstrong (2006) pointed out that collaboration is seen to:

facilitate enhanced performance in the school;

familiarize pupils with teaching and learning methods adopted in tertiary education;

expose pupils to large resources of the university sector;

encourage pupils into tertiary education;

ease the psychological stress of moving from secondary education to tertiary education; and

offer pupils entering tertiary education a more level playing field if some instruction in the use of e-resources were done in school.

This study has been a challenging experience. As faculty members in a LIS department, our approach to IL was quite different from that of secondary education teachers. We learned a lot about the problems they face and the constraints of the school system in general. The present study was part of a larger project aiming at the development of a web-based IL tutorial for high-school students. The information gathered by this study informed the content of the tutorial, which was based on the Big6Skills model (Eisenberg and Berkowitz, 1990) and constructivist approaches to learning, in that it is student centred; it adopts a non-linear learning approach; it tailors instruction to specific audience; it is based on authentic tasks; it offers more than a medium (text, graphics, sound); and it teaches concepts (Togia et al., 2013). The authors see the product as a tool which will guide teachers in their effort to help students learn how to learn, become independent learners, and acquire the knowledge, skills and abilities which are essential in the changing information world.

Footnotes

Funding

The paper is based on research funded by the Research Committee of the Technological Educational Institute (TEI) of Thessaloniki, Greece.

Author biographies

Aspasia Togia is Lecturer at the Department of Library Science and Information Systems of the Alexander Technological Educational Institute (ATEI) of Thessaloniki, Greece. She has an MA in Librarianship from University of Sheffield, UK and a PhD from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), Greece. In her thesis she examined the diffusion and use of scientific information in Greece during the 18th and 19th centuries. She teaches several courses, including Social Sciences and Humanities Information Sources, Pure and Applied Sciences Information Sources, Cataloging, and Subject Indexing of Library Materials. She served as a site librarian at the School of Agriculture of AUTH for more than 10 years. Her main research interests include information needs, information behaviour, information literacy, and scholarly communication.

Stella Korobili is Professor at the Department of Library Science and Information Systems of the Alexander Technological Educational Institute (ATEI) of Thessaloniki, Greece. She holds an MA in Library Science from Kent State University, Ohio and a PhD from Comenius University of Bratislava, Slovakia. The title of her thesis is Design and development of an interactive multimedia tool: A model for a bibliographic instruction course in a Greek academic institution. Her research interests include information literacy, user instruction, information-seeking behaviour and online information retrieval.

Aphrodite Malliari holds a PhD from University of Macedonia, Greece. Her thesis deals with information retrieval from integrated library systems in academic libraries. From 2008 to 2013 she was Assistant Professor at the Department of Library Science and Information Systems of the Alexander Technological Educational Institute (ATEI) of Thessaloniki, Greece, where she taught courses on Research Methods in Library and Information Science, and Thesaurus Construction. Her research interests include information literacy, information needs and information-seeking behaviour.

Ilias Nitsos holds a BA and a PhD in Applied Informatics from University of Macedonia, Greece. The topic of his thesis is Free text information retrieval systems: Indexes and compression codes. He is Lecturer at the Department of Library Science and Information Systems of the Alexander Technological Educational Institute (ATEI) of Thessaloniki, Greece. Among his interests are: information retrieval, database systems and information literacy.

References

Abell

Ward

(2000) Skills for Knowledge Management: Building a Knowledge Economy. London: TFPL.

Abrams

Southerland Silva

(eds) (2008) Inquiry in the Classroom. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

American Library Association (1998) Introduction to Information Literacy. Available at: http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues/acrlinfolit/infolitoverview/ (accessed 20 July 2012).

Asselin

(2005) Teaching information skills in the information age: An examination of trends in the middle grades. School Libraries Worldwide 11(1): 17–36.

Asselin

Lee

(2002) I wish someone had taught me: information literacy in a teacher education program. Teacher Librarian 30(2): 10–17.

Bowers

CVM

Chew

Bowers

. (2009) Interdisciplinary synergy: A partnership between business and library faculty and its effects on students’ information literacy. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship 14(2): 110–127.

Boyatzis

(1998) Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Branch

(2002) Helping students become better electronic searchers. Teacher Librarian 30(1): 14–18.

Branch

(2003) Teaching, learning and information literacy: Developing an understanding of pre-service teachers’ knowledge. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian 22(1): 33–46.

10.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

11.

Bruce

(1997) Seven Faces of Information Literacy. Adelaide: Auslib Press.

12.

Burhanna

Jensen

(2006) Collaborations for success: High school to college transitions. Reference Services Review 34(4): 509–519.

13.

Burton

Chadwick

(2000) Investigating the practices of student researchers: Patterns of use and criteria for use of Internet and library sources. Computers and Composition 17(3): 309–328.

14.

Caine

. (2005) 12 Brain/mind Learning Principles in Action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

15.

Carr

(1998) Information Literacy and Teacher Education. ERIC Document ED424231.Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. Available at: http://bern.library.nenu.edu.cn/upload/soft/0-article/025/25071.pdf (accessed 12 May 2013).

16.

Chou

(2003) Incidences and correlates of Internet anxiety among high school teachers in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior 19(6): 731–749.

17.

Chrysos

(2000) Government policy on teacher education in Greece: Revolutionary change or repetition of the past? Educational Policy Analysis Archives 8(28). Available at: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n28.html (accessed 30 September 2011).

18.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2000) Research Methods in Education. 5th edn. London: Routledge.

19.

Combes

(2009a) Digital natives or digital refugees? Why we have failed Gen Y? In: 38th Annual conference of the International Association of School Librarianship: Preparing students for the future, Padua, Italy, 2–4 September 2009.

20.

Combes

(2009b) Generation Y: Are they really digital natives or more like digital refugees? Synergy 7(1). Available at: http://www.slav.schools.net.au/synergy/vol7num1/coombes.pdf. (accessed 12 May 2013).

21.

Cuban

(1993) How Teachers Taught: Constancy and Change in American Classrooms, 1890–1990. New York: Teachers College Press.

22.

Davis-Kahl

Payne

(2003) Teaching, learning and research: Linking high school teachers to information literacy. Reference Services Review 31(4): 313–319.

23.

Dawson

Jackson

Rhodes

(2006) Graduate Skills and Recruitment in the City. London: City of London. Available at: www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/77A68583-D0B5–4B33-BAFB-4077DC6D1F3B/0/BC_RS_graduateskills_0610_FR.pdf (accessed 17 January 2013).

24.

Donnelly

Craddock

(2002) Information literacy at Unilever R&D. Update December: 40–42.

25.

Doyle

(1992) Outcomes Measurement for Information Literacy within the National Education Goals of 1990: Final Report to the National Forum on Information Literacy, Summary of Findings. ERIC Document No. 351033. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources.

26.

Duke

Ward

(2009) Preparing information literate teachers: A metasynthesis. Library & Information Science Research 31(4): 247–256.

27.

Earp

(2009) Integrating information literacy into teacher education: A successful grant project. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian 28(4): 166–178.

28.

Eisenberg

Berkowitz

(1990) Information Problem Solving: The Big Six Skills Approach to Library & Information Skills Instruction. Norwood, NJ.: Ablex.

29.

Emmons

Keefe

Moore

. (2009) Teaching information literacy skills to prepare teachers who can bridge the research-to-practice gap. Reference & User Services Quarterly 49(2): 140–150.

30.

Ercegovac

(2003) Bridging the knowledge gap between secondary and higher education. College & Research Libraries 64(1): 75–85.

31.

Fitzgerald

(2004) Making the leap from high school to college. Knowledge Quest 32(4): 19–24.

32.

Floyd

Golvin

Bodur

(2008) A faculty-librarian collaboration for developing information literacy skills among preservice teachers. Teacher and Teacher Education 24(2): 368–376.

33.

Foresight ICM Panel (2000) Point and cClick – Learners in the ICT driving seat: A Consultation Document, 2000. Available at: http://www.foresight.gov.uk. (accessed 25 July 2013).

34.

Francke

Sundin

(2012) Negotiating the role of sources: Educators’ conceptions of credibility in participatory media. Library & Information Science Research 34(3): 169–175.

35.

Francke

Sundin

Limberg

(2011) Debating credibility: The shaping of information literacies in upper secondary school. Journal of Documentation 67(4): 675–694

36.

Grubb

(1999) Honored but Invisible: An Inside Look at Teaching in Community Colleges. New York: Routledge.

37.

Guest

MacQueen

Namey

(2012) Applied Thematic Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

38.

Hay

(2004) Student learning through Australian school libraries Part 1: A statistical analysis of student perceptions. Synergy 3(2): 17–30.

39.

Heider

(2009) Information literacy: The missing link in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education 36(5): 513–518.

40.

Herring

(2006) A critical investigation of students’ and teachers’ views of the use of information literacy skills in school assignments. School Library Media Research 9. Available at: www.ala.org/ala/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume9/informationlitera (accessed 12 January 2013).

41.

Hinchliffe

(2003) Technology and the concept of information literacy for preservice teachers. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian 22(1): 7–18.

42.

Hobbs

Aspland

(2003) Bedding down the embedding: IL reality in a teacher education program. Australian Library Journal 52(4): 341–351.

43.

Hoepfl

(1997)Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers. Journal of Technology Education. Available at: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v9n1/hoepfl.html (accessed 28 February 2013).

44.

Ifanti

(2000) Decision making process in Greece: The case of the school curriculum. In: The international conference education for social democracies: Changing forms and sites, London, UK, 3–5 July 2000. University of London, Institute of Education.

45.

Ismail

Dorner

Oliver

(2012) Local studies teachers’ perspectives of information literacy education in primary schools. IPEDR 47(17): 76–80.

46.

Johnson

O’English

(2003) Information literacy in pre-service teacher education. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian 22(1): 129–139.

47.

Julien

Barker

(2009) How high-school students find and evaluate scientific information: A basis for information literacy skills development. Library & Information Science Research 31(1): 12–17.

48.

Kazamias

(1990) The curse of sisyphus in Greek educational reform: A socio-political and cultural interpretation. Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 6: 33–53.

49.

Kong

(2008) A curriculum framework for implementing information technology in school education to foster information literacy. Computers & Education 51(1): 129–141.

50.

Korobili

Malliari

Daniilidou

. (2011) A paradigm of information literacy for Greek high school teachers. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 43(2): 78–87.

51.

Kovalik

Jensen

Schloman

. (2010) Information literacy, collaboration and teacher education. Communications in Information Literacy 4(2): 145–169.

52.

Kuhlthau

(1991) Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 42(5): 361–371.

53.

Kuhlthau

(1996) The process of learning from information. In: Kuhlthau

Goodin

McNally

(eds.)The Virtual school Library: Gateway to the Information Superhighway. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, pp. 95–104.

54.

Kuhlthau

(2010) Guided inquiry: School libraries in the 21st century. School Libraries Worldwide 16(1): 17–28.

55.

Kynigos

(2001) New practices with new tools in the classroom: Educating teacher trainers in Greece to generate a ‘School Community, use of new technologies. Themes in Education 2(4): 381–399.

56.

Ladbrook

Probert

(2011) Information skills and critical literacy: Where are our digikids at with online searching and are their teachers helping? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 27(1): 105–121.

57.

Langford

(1998) Information literacy: A clarification. School Libraries Worldwide 4(1): 59–72.

58.

Lankshear

Bigum

(1999) Literacies and new technologies in school settings. Pedagogy, Culture & Society 7(3): 445–465.

59.

Lanning

Turner

(2010) Trends in print vs. electronic use in school libraries. Reference Librarian 51(3): 212–221.

60.

Limberg

Sundin

(2006) Teaching information seeking: Relating information literacy education to theories of information behaviour. Information Research 12(1). Available at: http://informationr.net/ir12–1/paper280html (accessed 25 February 2013).

61.

Lonsdale

Armstrong

(2006) The role of the university library in supporting information literacy in UK secondary schools. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives 58(6): 553–569.

62.

Macklin

(2001) Integrating information literacy using problem-based learning. Reference Services Review 29(4): 306–313.

63.

Mclelland

Crawford

(2004) The Drumchapel Project: a study of ICT usage by school pupils and teachers in a secondary school in a deprived area of Glasgow. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 36(2): 55–67.

64.

Magara

Bukirwa

(2004) Towards a school library development policy for Uganda. Library Review 53(6): 313–322.

65.

Mar-Rounds

(2011) Better Understanding Teaching Faculty’s Beliefs and Behaviour towards Information Literacy: The University of the South Pacific Perspective. Final Report. The Researcher-Librarian Partnership: An IFLA Library Theory and Research Section Research Mentoring Program for New Professionals. Available at: http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/library-theory-and-research/Projects/researcher-librarian-report-mar-rounds.pdf (accessed 8 November 2013).

66.

Mardis

(2003) The Improving Literacy through School Libraries Program of ‘no child left behind’: Tips for Writing a Winning Grant Proposal. ERIC Document ED482561. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.

67.

Martorana

Curtis

DeDecker

. (2001) Bridging the gap: Information literacy workshops for high school teachers. Research Strategies 18(2): 113–120.

68.

Merchant

Hepworth

(2002) Information literacy of teachers and pupils in secondary schools. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 34(2): 81–89.

69.

Ministry of Education, Lifelong Learning and Religious Affairs (2011) New School: The Student First. Available at: http://archive.minedu.gov.gr/docs/neo_sxoleio_brochure_100305.pdf (accessed 15 September 2012).

70.

Mokhtar

Majid

(2006) An exploratory study of the collaborative relationship between teachers and librarians in Singapore primary and secondary schools. Library & Information Science Research 28(2): 265–280.

71.

Moore

(2002) An Analysis of Information Literacy Education Worldwide. White Paper presented for UNESCO, the US 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: www.nclis.gov/libinter/infolitconf&meet/moore-fullpaper.pdf (accessed 22 August 2013).

72.

Mutch

(1997) Information literacy: An exploration. International Journal of Information Management 17(5): 377–386.

73.

National Centre for Vocational Education (EKEP) (2003) Secondary Education. Athens, Greece: EKEP. Available at: http://www.ekep.gr/english/education/deuterobathmia.asp (accessed 15 June 2012).

74.

Oblinger

(eds) (2005) Educating the Net Generation. Available at: http://www.educause.edu/research-and-publications/books/educating-net-generation (acccessed 8 November 2012).

75.

Owusu-Ansah

(2005) Debating definitions of information literacy: Enough is enough! Library Review 54(6): 366–374.

76.

Papagueli-Vouliouris

(1999) Evaluation of teacher education in Greece: A political demand of our time. TNTEE (Thematic Network on Teacher Education in Europe) Publications 2(1): 129–138.

77.

Patton

(2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

78.

Peters

Jones

Matthews

(2007) InfoSkills: Training for independent learning. Learning and Teaching in Action 5(1): 4–8.

79.

Probert

(2009) Information literacy skills: Teacher understandings and practice. Computers & Education 53(1): 24–33.

80.

Saldana

(2013) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London: Oxford University Press.

81.

Smith

Given

Julien

. (2013) Information literacy proficiency: Assessing the gap in high school students’ readiness for undergraduate academic work. Library & Information Science Research 35(2): 88–96.

82.

Spronken-Smith

Harland

(2009) Learning to teach with problem-based learning. Active Leaning in Higher Education 10(2): 138-153.

83.

Sundin

Francke

(2009) In search of credibility: Pupils’ information practices in learning environments. Information Research 14(4) available at: http://InformationR.net/ir/14–4/paper418.html (accessed 12 May 2010).

84.

Togia

Korobili

Malliari

. (2013) The development of an online information literacy tutorial for high-school students. In: 20th international conference on learning, Rhodes, Greece, 11–14 July 2013.

85.

Vosniadou

Kollias

(2001) Information and communication technology and the problem of teacher training: Myths, dreams and the harsh reality. Themes in Education 2(4): 341–365.

86.

Walraven

Brand-Gruwel

Boshuizen

(2008) Information-problem solving: A review of problems students encounter and instructional solutions. Computers in Human Behavior 24(3): 623–648.

87.

Warmkessel

McCade

(1997) Integrating information literacy into the curriculum. Research Strategies 15(2): 80–88.

88.

Williams

Rowlands

(2007) Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future. Work Package II: The Literature on Young People and their Information Behaviour. London: Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/reppres/ggworkpackageii.pdf (accessed 3 February 2012).

89.

Williams

Wavell

(2006) Information Literacy in the Classroom: Secondary Teachers’ Conceptions. Final report on Research Funded by Society for Educational Studies. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen, Department of Information Management.

90.

Williamson

McGregor

Archibald

. (2007) Secondary students: The link between good practice and the avoidance of plagiarism. School Library Media Research Available at: http://www.ala.org/aasl/slmr (accessed 2 May 2013).