I'm sorry for the delay in answering this - the last two weeks have been
full of deadlines.
Mark asked:
Would you mind saying a bit more about the '3
reflective logs'? Was there a given structure/format for this
acitivity?
The 3 reflective logs comprised part of the assessed work for the 6 week
project (one log every two weeks).
Log 1: Students were asked to upload their team concept maps and reflect
on three areas
1. Understanding
Summarise how the concept map aided your team's understanding of the
design problem. (250 words max.)
2. Search strategy
Describe how you adapted your search strategy in different sources (such
as google, library catalogue, engineering databases, etc.), in
particular noting the use of search terms identified on your concept map
and any limits you decided to apply (such as date of publication,
material type, subject terms, internet domain, etc.) (250 words max.)
3. Organisation
Explain how you used the breakdown of subjects in the concept map to
structure your teams' file galleries and how far this was reflected in
the selection of search terms during the file uploading process. (250
words max.)
Mark asked:
What impact do you think this task had on students generally and with
regard
to their learning how to learn
The purpose of the whole project was to provide experience of working in
collaborative design teams and gain practical experience of the various
elements of the design process (log 3 asked them to reflect on this).
Students responded well to the mapping exercise as it provided an early
focus for teams with very tight deadlines. This had a positive impact on
team communication and project management. Reflective logs revealed that
students did make connections between the design problem, their
information needs/searching and the organisation of this in the
groupware software.
Hope this is helpful.
Lou McGill
DIDET Project
Learning Services
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 M.Hepworth
Sent: 16 February 2005 10:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Mindmaps
Hi Louise,
Sounds really interesting.
?
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)
**********************************************************************
|
