Information Literacy as Educational Transformation

The First Lens: Student Development

Narrative and Profile Introductions  

Scenario #1

Characteristics of Today’s Students

Technologically Adept; expect technology to solve problems      

Skilled at Multi-tasking; process information quickly       

Want to see personal investment in learning

Characteristics of Today’s Students

Expect change; see change as normal      

Collaborative; peer influences      

Visually attuned; less influenced by print

Hensley, 2000

Learning Environments for Today’s Students

Activity- and problem-based, inquiry-focused        

Relevance, customization, personalization      

Making connections      

Writing stories  

Two Perspectives on Learning Theory and Today’s Students

Two theorists/researchers:            --Jean Lave: sociocultural     theory      --Diane Halpern: critical thinking,   metacognition

Lave’s Contributions

“Situated Learning”: learning that occurs in a participative framework, in a community of experts, peers, and more capable others; learning that involves the whole person engaged in a particular situation

Lave’s Contributions

Legitimate Peripheral Participation: a process of acculturating new members into a community through increasingly complex performances

Halpern’s Contributions

Metacognition:      --”Thinking about thinking”   --self-awareness, self-control, self-regulation and self-monitoring, all related to one’s own thinking   

Learning Theory Applied to the Standards

“The information literate student . . . .”         -defines, identifies, considers, reevaluates, selects, constructs, retrieves, refines, extracts, summarizes, compares, integrates, reviews, organizes, chooses, demonstrates

Lave’s Learning Theory Applied to the Standards

Link the Standards to issues that engage student interest and motivation, to encourage situated learning (“how can students see benefits both academically and nonacademically in these competencies”?)  

Construct learning situations using the Standards to allow legitimate peripheral participation (“how can an apprentice-like approach and attitude be fostered in students?”)

Halpern’s Learning Theory Applied to the Standards

Use the Standards to promote metacognitive approaches to learning

(“how can students gain the skill to manage their own thinking, change unproductive search strategies, monitor their time and attention, know what they know and what they need to learn”?)

Student “Ownership” of the Standards

(Exercise)

The Second Lens: Program/Curriculum Change

Narrative and Profile Introductions 

Scenario #2

Towards a Learning Culture

Movement toward a pedagogy of engagement (AAHE)     

Emphasis on outcomes (student learning) rather than inputs and outputs   

Use of problem-based, inquiry-focused, student-centered approaches

Towards a Learning Culture

Service learning      

Connections with the world of work and professional life       

“authentic” assessment and self-assessment

The Learning Culture and Information Literacy

Information literacy connects all the players       -students       -faculty       -librarians       -I.T. personnel      -student services personnel    -faculty development staff    -assessment staff     -campus administrators

The Learning Culture and Faculty/Librarian Relations

Status issues: disciplinary expertise (faculty), interdisciplinary advocacy for students (librarians)      

 Bridging the Gap to Create the Learning Culture 

-make the discipline live for students (“undergraduate research”)     

-embed information literacy in faculty’s disciplinary interests      

-create conversations engaging all the players about information literacy in their own terms

LI/BI vs. Information Literacy

Isolation (library-centric) vs. connectedness (student- and learning-centered)       

Procedures vs. Fluency with Process and Concepts in context      

Imposed meaning vs. discovered or “constructed” meaning

Nature of the      Traditional “ BI One Shot”

Peripheral placement

Course content

Pedagogical Strategies

Assessment

Discourse of the discipline

“one shot”

Nature of “Course-Integrated” Instruction

Connected, increasingly pervasive

Course content

Assessment

Pedagogical Strategies

Discourse of the discipline

Instruction sequence

Nature of Information Literacy Learning Environments

Course content, pedagogical strategies, assessment, discourse

Spirals of connections

The Learning Culture: “situated cognition”, legitimate peripheral participation

Connections with the world of work and daily life

Sociocultural Learning Theory and Curricular Change

Lev Vygotsky—best known for focusing on the culture or social environment as key dimension of all learning

Vygotsky’s Contributions

The ZPD (Zone of Proximal Development)  -space within which students can perform  new tasks with the help of teachers or more capable peers, tasks they would otherwise not be able to perform alone (“assisted  performance”) 

Vygotsky’s Contributions

Scaffolding use of supports by teachers or more capable peers to help students learn new tasks within the zone of proximal development     

Vygotsky’s Learning Theory Applied to the Standards

Use the Standards to establish benchmarks for the zone of proximal development (“where can students learn new abilities with others’ coaching, modeling, guidance”?)     

Use the Standards to develop strategies for scaffolding new understandings (“what techniques work especially well for tech-savvy, visually-oriented, impatient students?”)

Using the Standards in Redesigning the “One Shot”

Focus on problem-based, inquiry-focused pedagogical strategies     

Treat the “one shot” as one of several episodes of continual learning, inside and outside of the classroom     

Use the Standards to focus on issues of particular interest to faculty (plagiarism, web evaluation)  

Redesigning the One-Shot

(Exercise)

Beyond the “One Shot”

Characteristics of Information Literacy Programs       --deep connections with the     curriculum     --faculty, librarians, students, others all shape the learning process  --student learning outcomes govern   content, pedagogy, discourse,   and assessment

Structures of BI Programs (traditional)

Orientation

Course-related instruction

Course-integrated instruction

Team-teaching

Separate courses

Arp and Wilson, 1989

Structures of Information Literacy Programs

Learning Communities

Student Cohorts, inquiry groups

Linked credit courses

Problem-based modules in disciplinary courses

Disciplinary or interdisciplinary capstone courses

Apprenticeship-type sequences, undergraduate research

Changing Assignments and Syllabi

Begin with learning outcomes, based on the Standards

Work with faculty to create assignments that target the students’ zone of proximal development     

Create sequences of assignments that develop increasing fluency with resources both inside and outside the library

Assignments should draw students into the scholarly conversation

Learning outcomes should be clearly stated on the syllabus 

The Syllabus as an Expression of Faculty Culture: Applying the Standards

(exercise)

The Campus Collaboration Lens

Narrative and Profile introductions

Case study #3

The Art of Collaboration

Collaboration the most difficult challenge in contemporary higher ed

Collaboration necessary to move student-centered approaches forward    

Collaboration essentially a cultural issue

Collaboration: Chief Theorists

Barbara Rogoff—shared thinking, communities of practice    

Jean Lave, Paul Duguid, John Seely Brown—communities of practice

Collaboration: Rogoff’s Contributions

Various forms of collaboration

--symmetrical (equality of status, similar levels of participation)   --complementary or unequal  (leaders, followers, varying levels of  participation)   

--the “collaborative attitude” transcends individual characteristics of those involved  

Collaboration: Rogoff’s Contributions

“Shared thinking”: key aspect of collaboration    --common premise or starting point  -may involve discord as well as    harmony

--ultimately, a matter of trust

Communities of Practice: Lave, Duguid, Brown

“Communities of Practice”:   -self-regulating, informal groups engaged in study or action related to goals of common interest            -no center of authority but  responsibility and expertise are  dispersed throughout the groups

Campus Collaboration: Key Issues

Information literacy is everybody’s business  

Use the Standards to reveal, construct collaborative possibilities   

Create opportunities for conversation about engaged learning       

Develop “communities of practice” for information literacy

Campus Collaboration: What’s in it for Everybody?

Show how information literacy and the Standards contribute to:     --assessment      --accreditation

--writing improvement --critical thinking      --retention       --graduation rates     --employer satisfaction     

“Communities of Practice” for IL: What would they look like?

(exercise)