Hi,



Apologies for not responding to various emails that I instigated but a
little buried under the start of semester and keeping 190 of the little
darlings amused ;) .



Chris Armstrong's comment: 'I'm not sure I agree with your view of IL as
non-generic.'



At one level I think it is generic in that the profession has come to a
detailed understanding of core elements of IL.  This is shown in the various
definitions of skills and learning outcomes, including Chris Armstrong and
the IL groups in the recent Update, CILIP's (which I like because it is
broad and applied) ACRL (because it tries to codify learning outcomes),
SCONUL's (because it provides case studies where there has been a focus on
learning outcomes), the detailed checklist of core skills at the University
of Abertay, Dundee, the definition of Levels of IL at Southampton etc..



However I think we would all except that these skills take on a
slightly/very different character in different contexts.  Some will be
generic, some similar sounding but different, some unique.



That's fine.  But agreeing on what it is does not mean we understand how it
should be taught and assessed.  We do have experience of what doesn't work.
For example, in SCONULs Learning Outcomes and Information Literacy (2004),
the University of Wales experience where discrete packets of library skills
failed to have much impact (nice to see an honest account of what didn't
work!).  Other work provides us with a clue as to what does work.  For
example Susie's experience at LMU (and apologies Susie what I meant was that
the diagnostic test was a good example of using a check list NOT that that
was primarily what you had done - that is obviously not the case) - where
great effort has been made to use good pedagogy and integrate IL in to the
curricular learning experience enabling people to learn how to learn.
Geoff's Walton's article in the recent Update also highlights the importance
of 'good' pedagogy.



Where this leads me is that it is fine to have a good check list for IL - we
need that to know what we want people to learn.  It can even be used for
diagnostic purposes (assuming the person being tested understands the
language).  But, it should not be taken as an indication of how it should be
taught.  Furthermore to think of IL as a set of skills, which tends to flow
out of check lists, can be counterproductive (as Debbi Bodden and Sue
Holloway state in Update).



How should it be taught? Through practice and discussion we tend to agree
that IL has to be taught in an integrated fashion i.e. embedded in the
curriculum.  Why?  I think there are many reasons for this - and NOT because
information literacy can take on subject specific characteristics (although
this is true and hence has to be taken on board).



The key reason for this is the way people learn.  We (IPs) have been
aculturalised into information literacy through many years of training and
practice.  We are therefore able, due to our deep knowledge of the subject,
to develop abstract descriptions of it and apply our knowledge to many
different situations.  This is not the case with most of our learners.



Chris A quotes James Herring who states that IL includes attitudes and a
certain motivation.  Learning to be IL has to be seen as learning a culture
and requires emersion in a specific culture and the opportunity to
experience and reflect on that experience.  IL is an area where the concept
of the situatedness of learning is key.  This relates to:



'learning as it normally occurs is a function of the activity, context and
culture in which it occurs (i.e. it is situated). This contrasts with
traditional classroom learning activities which involve knowledge which is
often presented in an abstract form and out of context.' (a concept taken on
board by the KM fraternity)

http://www.educationau.edu.au/archives/cp/04k.htm



Janice Smith and Martin Oliver's forthcoming article explores some of these
ideas [Smith, J. & Oliver, M. (2005) Exploring behaviour in the online
environment: Student perceptions of information literacy. ALT-J, 13
(1), 51-67].



Not only does learning IL need to be embedded in a relevant context, the way
we teach IL needs to take on board theories of learning, such as, situated
learning, the action research cycle, educators understanding of thinking
skills.  This requires us to recognise that new knowledge builds on old.
This requires the learner to reflect on what they already know, build on the
familiar in terms of ideas and tools, explore, constantly reflect on their
learning experience, discuss and exchange views with others about their
learning and gradually internalise the culture of IL.



This is all points to creating a learning environment that is integrated
into the wider culture of the participant and is why IL needs to be embedded
in the curriculum and also why assignments need to based around the learner
achieving objectives that relate to their wider situation - for example
helping them to do an assignment.  This in turn provides motivation.
Motivation itself needs to be considered and not assumed, as Marian and I
discuss in the Update article - again paying attention to the 'softer'
aspects of learning IL which, to me, seem fundamental to successful
teaching.



Taking on board this approach also means that we can not expect people to
learn an abstract, linear process that does not reflect the dislocated,
exploratory nature of learning.  Hence, although we need our models we can't
expect them to mean anything to the learner (maybe they will develop their
own or come to share ours).  I therefore agree with  Andrew Lewis' comment
'better to define checkpoints not as a list in serial, but as facets, that
are adopted in parallel', whic implies that the learner may not take a
specific path but a more iterative, exploratory approach to learning IL.



The latter poses problems when teaching (due to the educational environment
and the way we teach - it tends to be linear, first we learn this, then .).
However there is a broad sequential structure to the research process (and
NOT IL!) that does provide a structure (Define the problem, Identify
concepts etc. etc. ) within which we can hang IL learning BUT taking on
board the social, situated, exploratory, iterative, reflective process that
I have alluded to above.



I guess I better stop.  The following is a description of an approach that
tries to take on board some of these ideas that we hope to test out in
schools in Derbyshire (I have only shown the first two sessions).  This
structure stems from Marian's study of young people and what would help to
motivate them to do 'project work', described in Update:



Week 1. (1 hr) Define topic (in the classroom)

Orientate young people to the project process and are made aware of the
choice of final presentation

Explain purpose of learning

Draw on young people's prior knowledge

Class brainstorm as to what could be researched

Young people choose topics (within the broad topic area e.g. citizenship,
space etc.) working in discussion groups

Young people develop a research plan

Young people discuss, define and write down goals

Teacher and school librarian act as facilitators

Young people reflect on session in groups

Homework: young people develop and choose own research question to answer.
Young people identify their own reference sources from home.



Week 2 (2 hrs) Refine topic (in the library)

Purpose and learning outcomes of learning reviewed

Introduction to and basic training in the use of reference sources that
would help to further define topic and refine research question

Access reference sources (the World Wide Web, electronic databases,
encyclopaedia, thesauri, dictionaries) to help orientate young people to
topic and refine the research question working individually

Young people define the research question and identify key concepts

Young people individually draw a mind map of their chosen topic and conduct
peer assessment of mind maps

Teacher and school librarian act as facilitators

Young people reflect on session as a group identifying obstacles and
solutions

Homework: young people define the type of information required and relevant
sources (organisations, people, hardcopy and electronic)



Sorry to go on and on (I keep saying that!), but I guess I am a bit obsessed
with this ;)  I suppose we are all now moving on from the 'What is IL?' to
the 'How  can we foster IL?'.  I don't think it's easy and also to some
extent we are inhibited in education by the curriculum, modes of assessment,
the current learning environment (in schools, FE, HE), the lack of other
people's understanding of IL, our lack of knowledge of learning theory
(easily addressed) and the abstract, cultural nature of the subject i.e.
learning a way of learning, seeing and interacting with the world rather
than a set of skills.  At least in a University we do have well defined
subjects and projects to hang this stuff on.  In the public library this is
less obvious - perhaps it has to be linked to learning about urban climbing,
getting a job, settling in a new country, tracing your ancestors ... ?





Best wishes,



Mark

Dr. Mark Hepworth
Department of Information Science
Loughborough University
LE11 3TU

Tel: (44) (0) 1509 635706

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/staff/mhepworth.html