 |
 |
Hi Mark, Mark, My book does not claim to provide a questionnaire that ‘measures’ information literacy as though it were some kind of universal IQ test. The notion of ‘measurement’ I use is highly context-specific. There are two important points that need to be made in relation to the use of checklists in IL evaluation to address some of your reservations. Firstly the situatedness of learning is fully addressed by ACRL by applying the "embedded" model of IL (although when it comes to a definition of this model I prefer to use the ANZIIL framework which clearly illustrates the contextualisation of IL within the lifelong learning perspective and defines the various IL elements such as, generic skills, IL skills, values and beliefs as well as the wider disciplinary perspective – See Andretta Figure 2.2 pg.22 and Figure 3.1 pg 44). The second point that needs to be made is about the use of the diagnostic questionnaire I refer to in my book. Here it must be stressed that the questionnaire is not used in isolation but as a basis of individualised learning profiles that show students which particular area of IL they need to concentrate on during the course of the IL programme. This formative questionnaire is complemented by an assessed students’ evaluation of their learning experience particularly in terms of developing independent learning skills (in line with the embedded model of IL) through the articulation of tool literacy, critical thinking and evaluative skills. Such a flexibility enables the contextualisation of IL at subject level (students’ engagement with IL activities is determined by the discipline they are studying) and at learner level through the customisable learning plan or feedback generated by the questionnaire which promotes motivation and independent learning by encouraging students to take responsibility for their learning from the outset. You are absolutely right in arguing that IL takes on different guises according to various factors such as learner’s level of IL and their professional background, this is why the diagnostic questionnaire/self evaluation approach works well with first year students but not with post-graduate: “Ideally a combination of these strategies (ie diagnostic testing, formative and summative feedback etc) should be used to test different aspects of IL skills.. practice at DASS has shown that diagnostic testing is a more effective method of integration at undergraduate level of provision, whereas formative and summative assessment are more appropriate at postgraduate level” (ibid., pg 63). I also agree with your preference for a constructivist model of IL and I would add the need to adopt IL as a framework for learning and not just a set of skills to be ticked off and then forgotten. Feedback from the students seems to point to a sense of empowerment as they develop competences on information literacy and ultimately independent learning and embark upon a process of continuous learning: “I know that my IL skills will be very useful for my studies. As my subject knowledge expands I will probably need new skills in information literacy. It is not possible to become information literate within a few months. But I believe I will go on developing my IL skills through my degree and at work” (ibid., pg 96) All the best Susie From: "M.Hepworth" <[log in to unmask]> Date: 29 January 2005 16:37:03 GMT Subject: KPIs for Information Skills Delivery and testing information literacy Reply-To: "M.Hepworth" <[log in to unmask]> Hi, KPI, as I understand it, comes from the organisational domain and encapsulate the goals of the organisation and are measureable. An application of this approach to libraries can be found at http://www.library.qut.edu.au/pubspolicies/ strategicplan_kpi_wallchart_2003_2006.pdf . However, although there is a section on delivering information literacy, they are brief and there is a great deal more on the boader goals of the academic library in general - maybe that was what was required. Shifting the topic to a related area I would be interested in how people test/measure people's information literacy and their views on the approaches taken. One approach is the checklist. The ACRL list of learning outcomes still seems a good base for developing a check list for measuring information literacy in the sense that it defines goals for information literacy. Knowling these one could measure how successful one had been at delivering skills i.e. test the trainee. The ACRL standards can be found at http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/ informationliteracycompetency.htm#stan and could be converted into a check list. Susie Anretta's (2005) recent book 'Information Literacy: A practitioners guide' published in Oxford by Chandos Publishing, provides a diagnostic questionnaire that can be used to 'measure' a person's information literacy. A set of questions covering a topic indicate the level of knowledge in a particular area or sub-set of information literacy. Although these tests are obviously useful, I have reservations about the check list approach and wonder what others think. Here is my view. Neither ACRL standards and outcomes nor Susie's test tackle the situatedness of learning because of their generic nature. In fact they do not intend to, hence this is not a criticism but introduces the question of whether attention to measurement may have negative implications, especially with regard to information literacy. Let me explain. Information literacy, although following broad similarities, has distinct characteristics in terms of knowledge, attitudes and skills according to the roles, tasks, knowledge, learning objectives and learning styles of different people. For example it will not be same for an experimental scientist, a humanities scholar, a person dealing with their own critical medical condition or a chief executive. Nor will it be learnt and applied in same way by a novice, expert, a holist, a serialist, a visualiser etc. Therefore to assume it is generic disguises the fact that unless learning is connected to a recognisable context and helps achieve relevant aims and objectives i.e. it is applied, and also relates to the characterisitics of the individual, the depth of learning is likely to be shallow. As mentioned above KPI encapsulates goals. These goals will be different in different contexts. Seeking a generic approach to measuring whether information literacy training has been successful is obviously necessary and useful, but I think we need to be wary of taking a too mechanisitic, behaviourist, view of information literacy. Check boxes that 'measure' information literacy minimise the importance of the individual, experiential, constructivist nature of learning. People may learn 'correct' responses with regard to information literacy tests but if the training has not related to their learning needs, will they make sense of it, internalise it and be able to apply that knowledge to different situations? The check box approach also has the danger of presenting a simplistic view of information literacy, which may be useful, but may be counterproductive (check box ticked, done that, now move on) in terms of persuading other people of the need to devote sufficient time to developing this knowledge and associated skills. This is evident in many models of information literacy that ignore the motivational issues of information literacy as well as the complexity of the thinking skills associated with the information literacy process, such as setting goals, conceptualising, deductive/inductive reasoning, categorising, synthesising, critical reflection etc. etc. Sorry to go on but am currently developing an information literacy training course, in conjunction with a PhD student, which tries to integrate knowledge about the learning process, information seeking behaviour and information literacy as well as the practical aspects of delivery and assessment. This will be implemented in Tanzania in April - hence uppermost in my mind. What methods have been used to evalaute information literacy? How do these relate to differences in the individual and the domain? It would be an interesting and worthwhile project for someone to review current practice for evaluating information literacy. Perhaps it has already been done? Best wishes, Mark