 |
 |
Hi There is also a very good mind map package called 'Inspirations'. We recommend it for our dyslexic students and staff but we will be using it to incorporate mind maps into our IL programme next year. Best wishes Debbi Debbi Boden Faculty Team Leader (Life Sciences) Central Library Imperial College London South Kensington Campus London SW7 2AZ Tel: 020 759 48619 -----Original Message----- From: Information literacy and information skills teaching discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Angela Newton Sent: 17 February 2005 09:03 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: LIS-INFOLITERACY Digest - 15 Feb 2005 to 16 Feb 2005 (#2005-20) I was delighted to the response to my query about using MindMaps in teaching IL, it seems that many of us have tapped into the same methodology. A few of you asked what I was using and how: I have been using freeware to construct maps called FreeMind: http://freemind.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page it works fine, but it isn't as flexible as the Mind Genius package (which I have seen demonstrated but never used). I'm using it specifically with students writing mini-dissertations on predefined topics, and trying to encourage them to put more effort into the planning stage of literature searching, though they can also use them to map a strategy for their entire dissertation. What has been encouraging is that many students have asked for extra mind maps (I partially build one on their topic, print on A3 and they fill in the rest) to take away with them after the session. Other respondants are using MindMaps in HE and FE to teach at all levels from undergraduates right through to research staff. They seem to work well when: - structuring your research question - developing keywords and synonyms - reflecting on learning - encouraging teamwork - ice-breaking - concept development I'm sure there are a million and one applications, of MindMaps, the keen amongst you may want to look at the work of Tony Buzan: http://www.mind-map.com/EN/index.html he has written lots of books on the subject and the website contains some interesting examples. If you missed Lou McGill's url for the DIDET Project, here it is again: http://dmem1.ds.strath.ac.uk/didet/ Best wishes, Angela Angela Newton Faculty Team Librarian (Sci-Eng Team) Leeds University Library Woodhouse Lane Leeds LS2 9JT Tel: 0113 34 35060 Email: [log in to unmask] www.leeds.ac.uk/library/people/ajn.htm -----Original Message----- From: Information literacy and information skills teaching discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Automatic digest processor Sent: 17 February 2005 00:09 To: Recipients of LIS-INFOLITERACY digests Subject: LIS-INFOLITERACY Digest - 15 Feb 2005 to 16 Feb 2005 (#2005-20) There is one message totalling 367 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. Mindmaps ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:20:07 -0000 From: "M.Hepworth" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Mindmaps Hi Louise, Sounds really interesting. Would you mind saying a bit more about the '3 reflective logs'? Was there a given structure/format for this acitivity? What impact do you think this task had on students generally and with regard to their learning how to learn? 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Louise McGill" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 12:44 PM Subject: Re: Mindmaps I have been using mind maps to support information literacy teaching for several years for postgraduates as well as undergraduates. I tend to suggest concept maps for PG level (as the expression of relationships between concepts is often critical to help them 'unpack' their research question). At an individual level I generally use them to help students identify terms for searching such as synonyms, broader, narrower and related concepts. I'm currently working on the DIDET project (see weblink below for more information) looking at the impact of digital content on the education of design engineering students working on team-based projects. We recently integrated information literacy sessions within a six week student project using team concept maps. In this design engineering project where students not only have to source relevant information, but create, store and share content, concept maps had the additional advantages of being a visual tool, a team ice-breaker, a way to identify and record the teams knowledge construct of the problem, a focus for allocating team roles and areas of activity, and a starting point for identifying ways to organise file folders and information. 3 reflective logs were part of the assessed work - the first of which was concerned with the impact of using concept maps on the above activities. I haven't had the chance to write this up yet so no reference as yet. Lou McGill DIDET Project Learning Services University of Strathclyde Alexander Turnbull Building 155 George Street Glasgow G1 1RD Tel: 0141 548 3216 http://dmem1.ds.strath.ac.uk/didet/ -----Original Message----- From: Information literacy and information skills teaching discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Angela Newton Sent: 14 February 2005 16:36 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Mindmaps Hi, I was interested to see Mark mention using MindMaps in IL training, I have recently started to integrate these into teaching literature searching with undergraduates with some success. Has anyone else had experience of using MindMaps in IL teaching? Angela Newton Faculty Team Librarian (Sci-Eng Team) Leeds University Library Woodhouse Lane Leeds LS2 9JT Tel: 0113 34 35060 Email: [log in to unmask] www.leeds.ac.uk/library/people/ajn.htm -----Original Message----- From: Information literacy and information skills teaching discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Automatic digest processor Sent: 12 February 2005 00:09 To: Recipients of LIS-INFOLITERACY digests Subject: LIS-INFOLITERACY Digest - 10 Feb 2005 to 11 Feb 2005 (#2005-17) There is one message totalling 245 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. KPIs for Information Skills Delivery and testing information literacy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:03:29 -0000 From: "M.Hepworth" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: KPIs for Information Skills Delivery and testing information literacy 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 ----------------------------- End of LIS-INFOLITERACY Digest - 10 Feb 2005 to 11 Feb 2005 (#2005-17) ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ End of LIS-INFOLITERACY Digest - 15 Feb 2005 to 16 Feb 2005 (#2005-20) **********************************************************************