Week 3: What Works in Information Literacy

What is information literacy? In short, it’s the ability to find information and know how to use it appropriately.  In Week 3, I have looked at three different articles that deal with some aspect of information literacy (IL).  Two of the articles focused on the most effective ways of reaching learners for IL instruction while a third article was all about a specific example of implementing an online class for teaching IL.  What seemed most obvious from my reading is that there is no single best method of imparting information literacy skills to library patrons.  Rather, teaching information literacy skills happens whenever the opportunity presents itself.

The first article I read, “Making information literacy relevant (Shenton & Fitzgibbons),” discussed how we can encourage better information-seeking habits through broadening our ideas of what are appropriate search topics.  This question of what students should search for—only academic-related topics? or subjects of personal interest as well?—is of primary concern to the authors. IL strategies are typically taught within what the authors refer to as “exercise” categories—so the student is not necessarily familiar with how IL may be applicable in real-world, real-interest areas. They argue that, as instructors of IL, we should strive to draw upon subjects of interest to our learners. After all, the more students can relate to what they are searching for, the more they will care about the search process, and the more information literate they will become.

Another article, “Alternative strategies for promoting information literacy (Galvin),” also dealt with how IL can best be taught.  Specifically, the author was interested in utilizing teachable moments for IL instruction, and she stressed that becoming information literate is an ongoing process.  Related to this, she observed that IL can seldom be learned effectively through a “one-shot” tutorial or workshop—a point I found interesting considering the reading (author) from last week. As an example of how and where IL can be taught, Galvin points out the reference services offered at academic libraries. Reference librarians should strive for excellent customer (patron) service, the author argues, as being approachable may mean the difference between a student learning valuable information literacy skills or not. Over all, the more available library resources are (in whatever form: handouts, roving librarians, modules, virtual reference desks), the more probable it is that students will eventually grasp necessary IL skills.

Finally, I looked at an article about a specific case of information literacy instruction (“Taking information literacy online,” Levesque). The author described the experience of designing a new IL course at a community college and the challenges that came with this task. I was hoping this article would provide examples of what worked well in an online information literacy course, but I came away from the reading with a better idea of what didn’t work so well in an online environment. For instance, posting in forums and discussion boards was especially problematic for first-time users—they just didn’t do it.  At the same time, the article offered a few worthwhile tidbits for future instructors of IL: stay away from text-based instruction, use group projects to actively engage participation, etc.

To summarize, teaching IL should not be reserved for purely instructional moments (IL tutorials or courses). IL can be learned from whenever the circumstances allow.  Moreover, as Shenton & Fitzgibbons and Galvin point out, students are unlikely to want to learn IL skills unless backed into a corner. Galvin notes that most literacy skills are learned at the “point of need,” or whenever the student has exhausted his list of options and (finally) needs to know how to find and use information. This notion of reluctance or resistance to learning IL suggests that perhaps designing tutorials, workshops or entire classes on the subject may not be the best route.  The motivation for learning IL must be in place first, and this usually occurs during the course of regular academic work.  Consequently, librarians should make IL resources readily available to students—through webpages, pamphlets, online modules, or in-person instruction/reference—whenever the information need strikes.

Shenton, A.K., & Fitzgibbons, M. (2010). Making information literacy relevant. Library Review, 59(3), 165-174. 

Galvin, J. (2005). Alternative strategies for promoting information literacy. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(44), 352-357.

Levesque, C. (2003). Taking information literacy online. Community & Junior College Libraries, 11(2), 7-11.

Week 2

This week in SI 643 focused on how different instructional tools can be used to promote effective learning both in face-to-face situations and in online environments.  

To start things off, Veldof introduces us to the ADDIE (analysis-design-development-implementation-evaluation) model for developing instructional workshops or modules. This article offered some useful strategies for how to go about actually creating a “one-shot library workshop,” as the author deems it. The authors of the other articles channel some of these ideas in their own implementation of learning modules. In Yelinek’s article, an online learning module is designed for distance-education students.  In this instance, the authors analyze the problems students have been having with the (Missouri) online curriculum, design an online tutorial using Captivate and MenuBuilder software, and use online feedback as a way of assessing the effectiveness of their module.  

Similarly, in Johnston’s article, an online learning module is created for a group of first-year social work students by analyzing the learning needs then designing a learning tool that will be used effectively (in this case, the module is mandatory).  Feedback is collected, with some students indicating a preference for online (or self-paced) learning and others favoring face-to-face instruction (allows students to ask questions). The important take-away message from Johnston’s article seems to be that not all learners are created equal, and librarians and other instructors need to keep this in mind.

From having participated in a few online courses and/or online class assignments, I was most sympathetic to Yelinek and her colleagues’ experience.  It seems that online learning would be conducive to such instructional methods, as an online module both familiarizes students with interactive online environments while teaching them important skills.   From having used Blackboard, Angel, CTools and other course management sites, it can take awhile to acclimate oneself to a new learning environment. 

The overarching theme of all this week’s readings was about how information literacy (and other skill sets) can best be taught. I think that the self-paced, online learning modules discussed are promising tools for teaching a lot of skills (library catalog usage, accessing an online account, etc.), but as one of the users in Johnston’s article pointed out, if the online module isn’t effective, there’s usually nothing else for a distance learner to fall back on.  Furthermore, for the technologically-inept, it’s unlikely that an online module about using online resources will be helpful; in cases such as these, face-to-face instruction may alleviate users’ fears about unknown technologies while showing them new skills.

Week 1

In reading the first chapter of How People Learn, what seemed to stand out the most was the distinction between teaching and learning.  Effective teaching can only happen if actual learning is occurring.  Moreover, what learning requires these days is much more sophisticated than in previous times—mostly, because the emphasis has shifted from “knowing” (i.e., acquisition or memorization) to understanding.

Drawing upon this idea of understanding, the textbook provides an example of how students’ previous knowledge influences how they learn.  The example of Leo Lionni’s children’s book, Fish Is Fish, is meant to illustrate how people’s preconceptions inform their learning experiences.  In Lionni’s book, the fish character imagines his tadpole friend’s descriptions in terms of what he knows—which is to say, fish.  This was probably my favorite example included in the reading, because it made sense in terms of my own personal learning style.  When reading a book I imagine settings in terms of the places I have been, characters in terms of the people I have known, etc.

My last thoughts on Chapter 1 are on metacognition, or knowing about knowing.  The authors stressed the importance of not following a “one-size-fits-all” sort of rhetoric for learning.  Obviously, different disciplines require different approaches. For librarians, I think this is an important idea to bear in mind, as user requests for information are extremely varied in scope and topic.

Considering the differences between novice- or expert-level as discussed in Chapter 2, I take into account my experiences in SI 502, a recent technology courses I took.  One of the primary objectives of the class is to introduce students to basic computer programming through the Python language.  For me, not having a preexisting framework for understanding Python made understanding how to program difficult.  I didn’t always “get” why certain syntax rules or structures had to exist, and I had certain preconceptions of my own from which I probably needed to be disengaged.

Finally, after reading ALA’s Core Competences of Librarianship, I was immediately struck by how diverse the set of core competences are.  In particular, though, I found the 5^th section, Reference and User Services, to be the most interesting.  I was originally attracted to librarianship because it is socially aware and community driven—so no surprise that I think how librarians interact with their patrons is of key importance.