information literacy resources

Guidelines for Instructional Programs in Academic Libraries. Association of College and Research Libraries, 2003.

This document defines IL as "identifying an information need, accessing needed information, evaluating, managing, and applying information, and understanding the legal, social, and ethical aspects of information use." The document gives a general overview of program structuring and implications for evaluation, human resources, and support structures (including instructional facilities, instructional support facilities, financial support, and support for continuing education, training, and development).


Characteristics of Programs of Information Literacy That Illustrate Best Practices: A Guideline. Association of College and Research Libraries, 2003.

This document traits (divided into 10 categories) that describe features in information literacy programs that are best practices. There are links throughout the document explaining more information.


Objectives for Information Literacy Instruction: A Model Statement for Academic Librarians. Association of College & Research Libraries, Instruction Section, 2001.

The document lists competency standards for information literacy programs. Each competency standard lists performance indicators. Each performance indicator includes outcomes (discussed as goals and tasks within our course). This is an extremely thorough document. It includes an appendix summarizing competencies.


Information Literacy Standards for Student Learning: Standards and Indicators. American Association of School Librarians, Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1998.

This document is aimed at K-12 education, but many of the principles could be applicable to information literacy at the college level. The document provides guidelines for determining what "information literacy" means in terms of the student. This document also ahs general categories, broken-down into standards, broken-down into indicators.


Cited Resources

Gradowki, Gail, Snavely, Loanne, and Dempsy, Paula, eds., Designs for Active Learning: A Sourcebook of Classroom Strategies for Information Education. Chicago: American Library Association, 1998.

Branch, Katherine, et al., eds. Sourcebook for Bibliographic Instruction. Chicago: American Librarian Association, Association of College & Research Libraries, Bibliographic Instruction Section, 1993.

Reflections on my participation in “LIS” 672, Instructional Design

Self-evaluation

I signed up for this course not knowing what I was getting myself into. All I knew was that I was leaning towards information literacy at a college level, and this class looked like the “best fit” for those skills in the LIS catalog. When I started the class I realized that I was going to learn an awful lot: it seemed that everyone was teaching and working on a PhD in education! (Now I realize I wasn't quite so alone... it just really felt like it at the time!)

I was most at home during those first, most theoretical, weeks. Since then I've been more sequential and precise than my previous education (philosophy, communication, and women's studies) require. I've learned a lot from classmates about educational theory and feel that the knowledge will be useful when I'm working on developing my own class.

As we got further and further into our individual projects I felt less and less part of the class. I did think that the projects were very useful to illustrate what we were learning (I doubt I would have understood what was meant by "task" without having comments on my project), but it also slightly separated the class into segments, sending us in our own directions. I think this is alright when it happens in class that are primarily lecture-based, but I felt that this individualized directions distracted most people from the discussions, which limits learning in a conversational-based class.

As the discussions dwindled, I participated a little bit less, too. I did work on my own, however, reading Learning as a Way of Being and Orality and Literacy, and pouring over Information Literacy sites (including several from the American Library Association). These activities weren't directly part of my class experience, but they were an important part of my perspective as I went through class, particularly during those weeks when I felt that I had less to contribute.

My personal expectations

I feel that I did use my inner resources and applied them well. I didn't have the classroom experience that a lot of folks had, but I do have a lot of experience supervising students, and helping them learn how to do their job. When I had something of value to add I always put it out there. (This is something that I rarely feel comfortable doing in a lecture-style classroom.)

I feel that I did meet my own expectations. I participated as fully as I felt that I was able to do. I added resources that I thought were relevant. I made use of class resources and blogs.

Design evaluations

If I were to begin the course with the knowledge I have now, I would probably consider doing a little background learning before the course, even if it were just going to coffee with a teacher-friend to get some basic theory under my belt, before getting started. After getting involved with my MLIS degree (where almost no one has a background in the subject matter) I'm used to a lot of background as part of any course. If I had fully understood this was an education class, I would have put forth some effort in the weeks beforehand to understand basic principles (such as constructivism). I don't think it hurt me to learn on the fly, it just was a little intimidating.

I also think that if I were to do this class again I would choose a project that was a little broader. When I came into the class I didn't have any foreseeable role in designing a course, so I picked the next best thing: a presentation. However, if I had known that I was going to be getting involved with the LIB100 classes at WFU I would have applied the project to that course. (I’d particularly consider the use of journaling a la Sue.) I think that this would give me a little more similarity in background to other classmates and would give me a better project to fully illustrate the concepts we learned.

reflections, with two weeks to go.

So, in the final weeks of the ID class, we’re reflecting on what we’ve learned and thought about throughout the course.

Fortunately, for me, I didn't have a clear picture of instructional design before I started this course. I knew it probably had to do with designing curriculum and probably a correlating presentational scheme. Beyond that I had no idea; I had plenty of room to grow. I've found the framework of the course to be useful, the “ID Power Train” includes useful tools, I've gotten a better idea of educational theory, and I've learned about concepts that help with instructional design. So this course has created a foundational image of ID for me, on which I can, hopefully, build.

I was expecting more about theory and less about specifics (such as "how to incorporate a specific technology into a curriculum" etc.). Until the “ID Power Train” the material fit that expectation (which was great... exactly what I expect graduate education to be). Once we started with the “ID Power Train” I felt that the course was much more like undergraduate courses, filled with specifics that might change in light of new research. I do think the “ID Power Train” is useful, but I also missed the theory we were talking about earlier on. On a side note: I felt that the theory could be applied across the spectrum. It doesn’t matter if you’re working with K-12 kids or college students, teaching math or information literacy, brain research or postmodern criticisms can apply. Once we got down to the nitty-gritty of the “ID Power Train” and specific projects, I felt much more disconnected from my classmates… we were all working on such different topics. (I don’t think this was all bad. Though there was a disconnect, there were still elements in common—remember this paper is a cloud?—it just took a lot more work to find the similarities.)

My work situation continues to add opportunities to use the instructional design concepts for instruction. Currently I'm (essentially) a TA for one section of LIB 100 at Wake Forest University. Next fall I'll be co-teaching with a coach in the room. Hopefully, after that, I'll be co-teaching just like the rest of the instructors. There will be increasing opportunities to use instructional design ideas in the courses I'm involved with. I've picked up several things I'd love to incorporate, too (such as pretesting).

I plan to continue to read up on information literacy, which will give me the librarians’ perspective, but I also know that I will want to keep up with instructional design as an independent field. My gut is that I will look in journals and read relevant articles, but I’d like to also attend training sessions at conferences, etc.

I think, at this point anyway, I need to be able to use instructional design in a more regular way. It will be useful to me to be teaching, because that will help me really learn what we've discussed and the course reading. However, I'm sure that actually using instructional design on a regular basis will just raise more questions.

(Oh, and I'm a postmodernist in most ways. Though I like the “ID Power Train” in some ways, and I like that it forces me to focus on tangible skills, I also am too confluent to love it, so there will always be a little pomo in me.)

librarianship concept map

I was so inspired by the use of concept maps earlier this semester, that I thought I'd do one of my general interests in librarianship and the connections that I see at this point in time. I started out just doodling on a page of paper, but realized that in mapping it out I'm able to better articulate what I find important and interesting in librarianship. It'll be interesting to see how this changes over the next two years, as I move through the MLIS program (and afterwards, in the professional world)!

For full size concept map, click here.

learning styles vs. prior knowledge

Hannum’s presentation was a bit more controversial this week! His presentation basically argued that when teachers pay attention to learning styles, they’re wasting their time. He said that research gives little indication that students learn more when teachers match instruction to their learning styles students will learn significantly more.

I’d like to see more of the research. One of the main studies cited compared visual and audio learners when using video and audio tapes. I was skeptical of the research immediately, because both video and audio tape relies heavily on audio learning (though the video tape was supposed to be better for visual). It turned out that my concerns didn’t matter because not only did visual and audio learners not do significantly differently with the “preferred” medium, audio and visual learners did about the same with both media.
Though, I did find it interesting that using multimedia was more effective across the board than just using audio or video tape. I think at this point I’d be interested in seeing the difference with a significantly different learning style, such as reading or interacting with the computer, though I suspect the results would be similar.

So, Hannum makes the charge that it’s a waste of time to use learning styles as a variable we consider how we’ll teach. He suggests what seems to be a very “back to the basics” way of looking at teaching: do an audience analysis to learn what the students know. Hannum states that prior knowledge is the vital factor for instructional success and leads the teacher to where to start the instruction and how to design the curriculum. As we’ve discussed when talking about constructivism, learning is most relevant when we help the students create meaning by linking new knowledge to old knowledge.

If we underestimate our students’ knowledge, they will be board; overestimate, and they will be frustrated. Hannum points out what anyone who has been a student knows: either error in planning will result in a waste of the student’s time.

Hannum’s recommended audience analysis includes general characteristics (broad, demographic characteristics, education level, job classification, prior experience, age, rank or level in organization, backgrounds, interests, and potential uses of instructional content) and specific entry behaviors (small, specific capabilities, based on instructional analysis, the student’s ability in an area, collect by pretesting and diagnostic tests). Hannum reminded us that we typically have access to general characteristics in advance, and specific entry behaviors can be learned through pretesting. The main tool that I’ve taken from this presentation is that pretesting is vital. I’ve known that I’d like to do that, as it’s in my personality to want to avoid boredom and frustration (so I’ve worked a bit of this out on my own), but I hadn’t seen an argument—using research—laid out in such an effective way. So, it’s in the plans for me.

(However, I am still interested in seeing the research, not only for the points mentioned about the audio/visual learners before, but the 10-20% folks who are significantly affected by learning styles.)

edubiology

Today I read "Does Technology Present a New Way of Learning?" by Robert N. Leamnson (as found in Educational Technology & Society 4(1) 2001).

When I first looked at it, I was a little bit apprehensive. My experience with sociobiology has been negative, and this seemed like it could potentially border that off base theory. However, at least in the span of this short article, it didn't.

Leamnson states that learning is a biological process. He says that this process has always been the same in humans and explains how the brain changes with age and learning. Leamnson says that learning, itself, doesn't change, though the disciplines might. For this reason he argues that technology for technology's sake isn't the best way to teach a class.

Leamnson seems to follow the trend our course has taken: technology is good as an aid for the student to learn more, but it's not the end-all for learning. He recommends guarding against misuse of technology in the classroom, and merely using it to facilitate the biological learning process we all use.

And you have to love anything that quotes Neil Postman. This article did: (1992)... '[t]echnological change is not
additive; it is ecological. A new technology does not merely add something; it changes everything.'"

surprises inthe LCI!

My Learning Connections Inventory results weren't exactly what I expected. I figured that I'd score highly for Confluent Processing, and low on the other three. However, I my "use this pattern first" was a tie between Confluent and Precise Processing and the other two, Sequential and Technical Processing tied for "avoid this pattern."

How strange that no process landed in the "I use this pattern as needed."

In retrospect I can see how I might score under the "Precise" category. I had associated it (based on the paragraph definition we read earlier) with "Sensing" in the Meyers-Briggs: I though Precise was a style that would be very detail and fact oriented. Now I realize that perhaps it deals more with information rather than detail. (I make this distinction because I may not be good with numbers, but I want to make sure I know the concept behind the way we use numbers.)

It's interesting to me that the Precise pattern seems to be in direct conflict with Confluent processing. I knew I'd score well for the Confluent processing Pattern, which is for those who synthesize, pull together ideas, and don't mind guessing according to their intuition. How could someone worried with accuracy of knowledge (a Precise processor) also like guessing? I think in my case it has to do with the fact that once I feel that I have the most accurate information that I can have (and have done the research to back it) then I feel that my guesses will probably be on target... and then I don't have to do that pesky double-checking that I can't stand (because I'm not at all Sequential).

It's no surprise to me that I ended up in the avoidance category with both confluent Sequential and Technical processing. What can I say? I only grudgingly double check information (which I always put off as long as possible) and I really prefer not to repeat. I'm also not a mechanically-minded person, so tools (as a thing) aren't that interesting or useful for me in my learning process. I was, however, surprised I scored so lowly on the Technical area, as I enjoy technology based tools and always try to intuit (hey-Confluent!) how to use things so that I can avoid the manual.

learning syles (adapted BB post)

Learning Styles don’t matter

Or so we read at the website.

The website (to me, at least) seemed primarily to be a complaint about all the different labels that are given to students (primarily through personality testing). I'd actually agree with the site if that were the point, as I think labels tend to pigeonholed people more than help them. But that wasn't the argument. The argument really seemed to be that there are too many labels; that is not something I can agree with. Though I don't like the idea of giving labels to people, having multiple types of labels to pull from (at least) gives a broader perspective of the person that a one-dimensional one.

The article says that it's too much work for a teacher to run a classroom with attention to each learning style. I actually agree that that shouldn't be the expectation: there are too many tests which lead to even more types for that. I think the problem is that the author lacks a nuanced understanding of multiplicity and the value of greyness. The author see it as black and white, a teacher either can or can't, learning types are good or bad. I think the author ought to consider how all these parts add up to the whole. There's different measurements for different learning types, there are age, ethnic, gender, and class differences, there's varying educational backgrounds. There are so many factors that there is no one way to measure a learner, so the teacher must attempt to know their students as people.

An understanding of various characteristics of the people in a classroom can allow a teacher to know how a particular class would react to a specific lesson. A teacher who knows her/his students will be able to read nonverbal signals to know if the lesson is going well.

As for the author's criticism of learning style tests: I personally don't love them (mostly because I believe they're misused more than they ought to be). However, if used appropriately they can be useful. If used in the context of knowing a person and as a general guide for statistics on the classroom, then the tests may be a useful guide. They're certainly not the end-all for lesson planning, though.

MOO reflections

I promised a reflection of my presentation in the MOO room, so here it is:

MOO is such a strange medium! The presentation pretty much emphasized the feelings I’ve been having with MOO throughout the semester. They’re much stronger now. Here’s a quick run-down of my thoughts:

It’s (obviously) text based
Pro: Text allows specific facts to be stated in a way that everyone can have access to them. In a traditional classroom, a participant may drift off into a daydream for a minute and snap back, but by the time the participant is paying attention the missed information may not be repeated.
Con: I really rely on nonverbal cues when I present to a group. I ask for head-nods; I look for eye contact; I use this information to determine if it’s alright to move on or if I need to stay on topic. There is none of this in a chat room, so the presenter has to hope that the audience is providing accurate information through comments.

Everyone talks
Pro: This is great for folks who are shy in traditional classrooms (like me). It’s more democratic, because there’s no stopping the comments as there would be in a traditional classroom.
Con: Whoa, everyone talks. A slide that might only take thirty seconds to go over in a traditional classroom might last for five minutes in a chat room environment. (This can be really nice, though, as tangential information might come up that would have otherwise seemed irrelevant… which is another Pro.)

There is “less time”
Pro: Since everyone is talking, there is “less time” in the class for the lesson plan. This allows the audience involved in the discussion a lot more freedom in the direction of their lesson. It allows conversation that the audience is actually interested in, rather than just what the instructor wants to teach.
Con: Sometimes (like in state-mandated curriculums or assigned presentations) there is specific information to cover, and this format doesn’t allow the presenter to have control over time the way a traditional format does. The instructor really must pay attention to the clock at all times to get all the information in.

Transcripts!!!
Pro: It’s great to have a transcript to study by or to use if a participant was absent. I imagine it would also be useful for the instructor to keep track of how students are doing.
Con: People might be hesitant to write in if they know they are being recorded. Permanent documentation is threatening if a person isn’t entirely sure if they want to make the comment or not.

So, that’s my overall feeling. I’m glad to have presented in this format, and I’d do it again in an appropriate context. I’m glad that my classmates are good co-MOO-participants, too… it makes it easy for the person presenting!

rambling & service-learning (adapted BB post)

I'm not sure if this will go anywhere, but bear with me...

I've just started the book Orality and Literacy (which you recommended to me earlier this semester, Bob). It's really interesting so far, though since it was published in 1982 the discussion of electronic communication is limited to television, radio, and the like.

A parallel to something Bob mentioned in the last post is the idea that cultures that use writing study. Because we can re-read text and learn from them, education becomes abstract. Oral cultures have apprenticeships (and I'd guess mentorships) in which studying--as we know it--doesn't exist. Learners work with teachers to pick up skills in order to be able to do skilled work.

So, the mention of tying education to something that matters to people, such as meaningful work, makes me think about internships and service-learning opportunities. Taking abstract lessons and tying them to something real.

Has anyone here participated in doing/teaching a service-learning class? It's really unbelievable.

The model NCSU used was to have a class with reading/discussion/lecture/and writing. The students broke into groups and came up with meaningful service projects that they could do that would reinforce the course material. Throughout the semester the groups would work on the service project, keep journals, and meet in regular reflection groups (guided by SL experienced students) and discuss what they had learned in the "real world" experience and how it tied to class. Everything we learned in the class was tangible, and I ended up putting much more work into that class than I put in others... all because the material seemed so important and real...

So, I guess in this semi-long ramble, I'd say that finding that desire and tying into it does, in my experience, make the learning more exciting to the learner... it's a matter of doing the legwork to find the desire or provide opportunities for the student to find that desire.

The Tipping Point

So, I just read Malcom Gladwell's The Tipping Point. It was really good and I sortof feel the need to post quickly here about it. If you're unfamiliar with the book and its premise, Gladwell was curious about what made some ideas/products "tip" and others not. Gladwell equates "the tipping point" with the point when an idea or product goes mainstream and hits it big.

In terms of this class: Gladwell takes situations that seem chaotic and point to the most minute actions that have a larger effect on the broader situation. One example was that at the hight of crime in NYC, subway officials stopped graffiti on subway cars, and then crime dropped. (There's a lot more to that example, but for that you'll have to read the book. *grin*)

In terms of info. lit.: I wasn't there, but Gladwell spoke at Midwinter (ALA) about what it would take for libraries to tip. I spent the last half of the book thinking about what it would take for information literacy to tip. I certainly don't have any answers, but now I think that it has to (1) come from individual institutions and (2) also have a broad movement in which "connectors" or "mavens" share information between individual institutions. There, of course, would need to be "mavens", "salespeople," and "connectors" at the school level, too, to spread the word among faculty and advisors. So now I'm thinking about how to make info. lit. "sticky" and what are the small changes that can be made to make it tip.