Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

ETL401

Teacher
Librarianship
Assessment 2
Portfolio

Leigh Gregerson
11494741
Word Count: 3 292

Part A
1
The definition of Information Literacy (IL) must be applicable to the varied contexts that use
information. The American Library Associations (ALA) definition of IL states; To be
information literate, a person must be able to recognize when information is needed and have
the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information. (1989, para. 3).
This definition is broad and inclusive in its potential application across many diverse contexts
including; academic, social, cultural, workplaces and through time with associated
technological advances. This definition does not include reflection, which may be detrimental
to the transferability of the IL person between contexts.
The ALAs definition of IL does not specify the type of information that must be used. This
enables the process of finding, evaluating and using to be relevant across contexts. As Lloyd
and Williams (2008, p. 10), Voithofer and Winterwood (2010, p. 689) and Campbell (2008,
pp. 18-19) indicate, information is presented in different formats depending on the context
and time. The context of some workplaces requires different information resources to an
educational context, as Lloyd and Williams (p. 14) points out through the identification of
verbal and experiential communication and resources. Alternatively, education settings often
focus on text and internet based resource (Lloyd & Williams, 2008, p.7; Campbell, 2008, p.
21; Ladbrook, 2010, p. 67). The open ended use of information in the ALA definition
enables IL to be moulded to different contexts.
ALA states use in its definition, that also enables inclusivity in the terms application across
settings. This word enables the inclusion of ethical use of information, which as Bundy (2004,
p. 3) and Campbell (2008, p. 24) indicate, is important in an educational context due to the
ever increasing use of technology and issues surrounding plagiarism. However, in some work
related contexts, presenting reference lists for information is not always necessary and
information may be acquired through experiential and oral means. AASL (2007, p. 3) also
places IL in an academic specific context and adds the sharing of knowledge with others to
ALAs definition. Again within nonacademic contexts the end product may be to make or do
something and sharing this is not required. The AASL and Bundy IL definitions have the
ALAs definition as a base that they expand on to suit the context. It is the flexible nature of

Leigh Gregerson 11494741

Page 2

the terms used in ALAs definition that enable it to be applicable to different contexts and
remain relevant.
Reflection is continually being seen as important in IL and ALAs definition does not consider
this concept. Herring (2011, p. 112) and Eisenberg (2008, p. 43) indicate the importance of
reflection throughout the process and as a concluding action to enables a deeper
understanding of the key concepts and their relationship to each other in the use of
information to gain knowledge. The omission of reflection within the ALA definition may
mean that effectively locating, evaluating and using information is not occurring because
thinking about the previous actions taken to inform the next action in the need for information
is not fully understood.
ALAs definition of IL contains the main abilities needed to be IL using broad terms that can
be personalized through the development of models suited to particular contexts. This is why
a 23 year old definition is still current within present contexts and an academic discourse.

Leigh Gregerson 11494741

Page 3

2
Information Literacy (IL) models provide a scaffold to assist students to effectively solve
problems using information. The Big Six Model (Big6) and Information Search Process (ISP)
are two IL models that have been adopted within school settings and beyond. These models
elevate IL beyond a set of skills through both utilising a process that provides a structure to
assist the learner in creating knowledge, metacognition and motivation in addition to
supporting teachers with instructional strategies.
The Big6 and ISP are processes containing six stages that provide a relational context for each
ability in the construction of meaning ( Eisenberg, 2008, p. 42, Kuhlthau, n.d., para. 2.02;
Kulthau, 1989, para. 3.03-3.04). Bowler (2010a, p. 33), Kuhlthau (n.d., para. 4.2) and
Eisenberg (2008, pp. 42-43) view these models as nonlinear, which enables the learner to
mould either model to their learning needs. This requires the learner to have a deep
understanding of the process behind the model and the connection between each stage that
elevates both models beyond the skills outlined within them.
The guiding principle for both models is the construction of knowledge. Their aims for the
learner is not finding and regurgitating existing ideas, but to construct new knowledge and
meaning from information (Barranoik, 2001, para. 1.01; Kuhlthau, Heinstrom & Todd, 2008,
para. 2.01; Eisenberg, 2008, p. 41). Kuhlthau (2004, p. 22) acknowledges that construction is
not a straightforward process. This reinforces the nonlinear nature of ISP and the need for a
deep understanding of the process where connections between each stage are necessary to
effectively use it for the construction of meaning.
Metacognition, often described as thinking about thinking (Bowler, 2010a, p. 39; Mills,
2006, p. 361) is inherent in both the Big6 and ISP models. Reflection is a vehicle that is used
throughout the ISP to ensure the stages of learning are implemented effectively and inform the
next step (Kuhlthau, Heinstrom & Todd, 2008, para. 8.02; Bowler, 2010b, p. 1334). In the Bi6
model reflection, planning and thinking are engaged in during all stages, and to conclude the
process. Wolf, Brush and Saye view the Big6 as a metacognitive support system (2003,
para. 7.02). Metacognition enables the learner to gain a deep conceptual understanding of the
stages and their interconnection in the process to guide decisions relating to the next action,
be it to revisit a previous stage in the model or progress forward towards synthesising and
presenting knowledge. This enables the student to engage with the skills they are using on a
Leigh Gregerson 11494741

Page 4

conceptual level in addition to providing the potential for transference. The ability for
metacognition with the Big6 and ISP raises these models beyond the notion of skills.
The two models have different approaches to IL. The Big6 is a prescriptive model based on
learning and instructing to construct meaning with reflection and metacognition (Bowler,
2010a, p. 30). Whist ISP is a descriptive model that is designed from the learners perspective
and is based on the thoughts, actions and feelings associated with the process (Wolf, n.d.,
para. 2.06; Kulthau, 2004, p. 13; Bowler, 2010a, p. 30). ISPs inclusion of feelings
differentiates it from the Big6. ISPs insight into the learners feelings has the potential to
change the Teacher Librarian (TL) and teachers approach when guiding students through the
process (Kulthau, 1989, para. 5.10). Due to this psychological understanding, Kulthau has
included additional structures; zones of intervention to enable appropriate assistance to be
provided by the teacher and TL in the use of the model for learning (Kuhlthau, Heinstrom &
Todd, 2008, para. 2.02) and the uncertainty principles that assist the teacher and learner to
understand the concepts behind the model (Kuhlthau, n.d., para. 9.03). These additional
concepts assist in maintaining student motivation by providing teaching strategies and an
understanding for the learner of the meaning behind the feelings connected to each stage in
the process, ensures the model is not a set of skills. The Big6s exclusion of feelings means
this model lacks ISPs motivational ability that enhances students application of the model.
According to Bowler (2010a, p. 27) and Kuhlthau, Heinstrom and Todd (2008, para. 7.01),
ISP has the values of critical thinking and lifelong learning and thus this model is transferable
within the educational setting and beyond. Wolf (n.d., para. 4.01) and Wolf, Bush and Saye
(2003, para. 8.12) mirror this view in relation to the Big6 model. Kuhlthau (1989, para. 5.01)
and Eisenberg and Berkowitz (1997, para. 6) suggest that the flexible nature of the ISP and
Big6 are what enables these values. However, there is evidence that contradicts the flexibility
and relevance of ISP, regardless of the setting. Studies conducted by Tsai, Lin and Tsai (2001,
p. 48) and Large, Beheshti and Rahman, (2002, pp. 440-441) found that gender and associated
feeling patterns effected the ISP model; particularly that boys felt more confident throughout
the process and girls more uncertain irrelevant of the stage. These studies cast a shadow over
the feelings associated with ISP and its relevance within a mixed gender setting. The Big6
model is also sighted as being flexible in its application within educational, personal and
professional contexts (Eisenberg, 2008, p. 40); however, Wolf (n.d., para. 2.04) notes that it is
designed for the kindergarten to year 12 educational setting. The contradictions within the

Leigh Gregerson 11494741

Page 5

literature highlight the potential shortcomings associated with the application of these two
models within and beyond the educational setting.
Inconsistencies are also present in each models incorporation of evolving technology. In 1997
Eisenberg and Berkowitz (para. 12) considers the Big6 to be flexible enough to move with
technological advances and Kuhlthau, Heinstrom and Todd (2008, para. 3.01) mirrored this
view in relation to ISP. However, in the same article Kuhlthau, Heinstrom and Todd (para.
12.03) acknowledge the frustration students feel when their perception does not reflect reality
when finding information using technology. Bowler (2010b, p. 1333) and Branch (2003, p.
57) confirm these findings of frustration that they associate with insufficient instruction of
technology use when finding information. These inconsistencies confirm the dynamic nature
of IL in the 21st Century and imply that these two models may fall short in their use of
technology based tools.
IL is more than a set of skills due to the metacognitive knowledge associated with the models
that scaffold this process. Using the Big6 or ISP IL models, learners are able to construct
knowledge and meaning of the subject content and processes undertaken due to each models
ability to facilitate the creation of knowledge. Both models appear to cater to the needs of the
21st century learner in many ways but may need to reconsider the impact of technology on the
initial finding stages.

Leigh Gregerson 11494741

Page 6

Part B
Technology is advancing at a rapid rate, which has enabled information to be accessible in
many forms that were previously not utilised within education. Advances in technology
include; e-books, Web 2.0 tools, virtual libraries and meta search engines. These tools have
changed the presentation of information by providing a greater emphasis on visual, audio and
video forms in addition to the traditional text based forms. Ramirez (2012, p. 88) and
McNaught (2008, p. 407) both agree that digital information is impacting Information
Literacy (IL). Teacher Librarians (TL) may face obstacles in the provision of digital resources
due to rapid technological advances and inappropriate scaffolding across the curriculum to
support the use of these resources.
Studies by Limberg, Alexandersson and Lantz-Andersson (2008, p. 250), Bowler (2010b, p.
1342) and Ramirez (2012, p. 88) all indicate a majority of students do not use the internet
effectively for information seeking. Regardless of these findings schools are not ensuring the
effective provision of appropriate digital resources. Teachers and students often assume that
students are able to use the internet effectively for information seeking due to their confidence
in using technology (Voithofer & Winterwood, 2010, p. 690; Bowler, 2010b, p. 1335;
Ramirez, 2012, p. 88). This assumption enables the exclusion of effective information seeking
strategies including quality question formation to be taught when using digital resources. This
lack of support for students using digital resources effects the selection and evaluation
processes associated with IL. Markless and Streatfield (2009, p. 326) and McNaughts (2008,
p. 410) studies found that critical evaluation of digital resources, including the reliability of
the source and information were lacking. Digital tools such as Web 2.0 enable a wider range
of perspectives to be published, which means students need to consider the authority of
information in addition to evaluating its relevance to their area of investigation. This area of
digital resource use often lacks instructional support for learners by teachers and TLs.
TLs and teachers need to ensure guidance is provided when students use digital resources for
research. The TL needs to ensure the library is technologically current in providing digital
resources and supporting infrastructure (Ramirez, 2012, p. 90; Hamilton, 2012, p. 250). This
entails the provision of software and hardware and its effective implementation to facilitate
learning from the digital resources the school provides. The TL also needs to review the
schools digital resource policy, particularly pertaining to internet filters (Hamilton, 2012, p.
250). Relaxing school internet filters enables greater access to resources that are often
Leigh Gregerson 11494741

Page 7

inappropriately blocked and allows the school to reflect the world students live in, where
blocks are usually not provided on internet resources. A whole school approach that teaches
students the appropriate and ethical use of the internet is needed in conjunction with opening
up the accessibility to web based resources.
There are internet tools, such as bookmarks and WebQuests and virtual libraries that may
assist the TL in their provision of relevant digital resources. Mills (2006, p. 368), Mcnaught
(2008, p. 409) and Limberg, Alexandersson and Lantz-Andersson (2008, p. 257) all found the
value in providing a contained digital collection to assist students in developing their IL skills
of finding, selecting and evaluation resources. Digital resource management systems enable
IL skills to be taught to students in a controlled environment and provide the potential for a
greater focus on thoughtful resource selection and evaluation without the risk of information
overload (Mills, 2006, p. 365) associated with digital information seeking , which can be
detrimental to the IL process.
TLs need to collaborate with other staff to ensure effective provision of digital resources.
Hamilton (2012, p. 40) and McNaught (2008, p. 408), agree that a scaffold is required to
ensure quality digital resources are effectively used. Quality question construction, critical
thinking, selection and evaluation strategies need to be included in the approach to teaching
students the effective use of digital resources (Ganguly & Pandey, 2010, pp. 165-66; Mills,
2006, p. 366). Through developing an understanding of these abilities students should be able
to appropriately apply them to the use of digital resources provided by the TL. Web 2.0 tools,
such as Wikis and blogs may be implemented in developing the above abilities, as they
provide a collaborative environment for the construction of knowledge (Markless and
Streatfield, 2009, p. 324). A consolidated approach between the TL, teachers and
administration is required to develop a scaffold for digital resource provision within a school.
An agreed on scaffold enables digital resources to become a valued part of the library
collection by providing the pathway to access information in digital forms. TLs also need to
work in equal partnerships with teachers for the effective implementation of this scaffolding
to assist students in effective digital resource use.
The provision of digital resources is a potential obstacle for TLs within schools; however,
through implementing their various roles associated with the position, such as; collaboration,
collection development, information specialist, leader and instructional partner, a TL can
overcome this hurdle.
Leigh Gregerson 11494741

Page 8

Part C
http://leighrobyn.edublogs.org/2012/05/19/assessment-2-part-c-critical-synthesis/

Leigh Gregerson 11494741

Page 9

References
American Association of School Librarians (AASL). (2007). Standards for the 21st- century
learner. Available from www.ala.org/aasl/standards.

American Library Association (ALA). (January 1989). Presidential committee on information


literacy: final report. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presidential

Barranoik, L. (January 2001). Research success with senior high school students. School
libraries worldwide, 7(1), 28-45. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/217754692/fulltextPDF?
accountid=10344

Bowler, L. (2010a). A taxonomy of adolescent metacognitive knowledge during the


information search process. Library and information Science Research, 32(1), 27-42.
doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2009.09.005

Bowler, L. (2010b). The self-regulation of curiosity and interest during the information search
process of adolescent students. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 61(7), 1332-1344.Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/ehost/detail?
sid=451cf346a8654bb6ba7c59f64407aec5%40sessionmgr114&vid=1&hid=104&bdata=JnNp
dGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=51532184

Branch (2003). Instructional intervention is the key: Supporting adolescent information


seeking. School libraries worldwide, 9(2), 47-61 Retrieved from

Leigh Gregerson 11494741

Page 10

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=b9cc66a0-3eb44b94-beaa-1006f48f04e3%40sessionmgr111&vid=2&hid=104
Bundy, A. (2004). Australian and New Zealand Literacy Framework: principles, standards
and practice (2nd ed.). Adelaide: Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information
Literacy. Retrieved from EBook Library.

Campbell, S. (2008). Defining information literacy in the 21st century. In J. Lau (Ed),
Information literacy: International perspectives (pp. 17-26). Munich: Walter de Gruyter and
Co. Retrieved from http://reader.eblib.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/
(S(tfobztcsjiblzkk5kgsqfvak))/Reader.aspx?p=364691&o=476&u=gj
%2bEaaeD5cLWqKZ0WWwhug%3d
%3d&t=1337324812&h=FFCFAC2584AC7B8C750F0FED8E7CC58880F82472&s=131106
48&ut=1443&pg=17&r=img&c=-1&pat=n#

Eisenberg, M. (2008). Information literacy: Essential skills for the information age. Journal
of library and information technology, 28(2), 39-47. Retrieved from
http://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/djlit/article/viewFile/166/77

Eisenberg, M. & Berkowitz, R. (1997). The big six and electronic resources: A natural fit. The
book report, 16(2), 15-16. Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/ehost/detail?sid=469781d7-da6b-4921-8afdc1cbfe296546%40sessionmgr111&vid=1&hid=104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ
%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=9710085605

Francis, J. (2012, March, 9). Re: TL roles and priorities [Online forum comment]. Retrieved
from http://forums.csu.edu.au/perl/forums.pl?
task=frameset&forum_id=ETL401_201230_W_D_Sub3_forum&message_id=5627673

Leigh Gregerson 11494741

Page 11

Ganguly, S. & Pandey, S. (2010). Managing change in reference and information services in
digital environment. In T. Ashraf, J. Sharma, & P. Gulati(Eds.), Developing Sustainable
Digital Libraries: Socio-Technical Perspectives (pp. 160-183). Hershey: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-767-1.ch009
Gregerson, L. (2012, March, 9). TL roles and priorities [Online forum comment]. Retrieved
from http://forums.csu.edu.au/perl/forums.pl?
task=frameset&forum_id=ETL401_201230_W_D_Sub3_forum&message_id=5627673
Hamilton, B. J. (2012). Embedded Librarianship: A High School Case Study. In S. Polanka
(Ed.), E-Reference Context and Discoverability in Libraries: Issues and Concepts (pp. 237253). Hershey: Business Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-61350-308-9.ch021

Herring, J. (2011). Year seven students, concept mapping and the issue of transfer. School
libraries worldwide. 17(1), 11-23. Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=bc5186575dd5-4d08-a41c-aba730badc64%40sessionmgr112&vid=2&hid=107

Kuhlthau, C. (1989). Information search process: a summary of research and implications for
school library media programs. SLMQ, 18(1) Retrieved from
http://www.ala.org/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/editorschoiceb/infopower/slctkuhlthau2

Kuhlthau, C. (2004). Learning as a process. Seeking meaning: A process approach to library


and information services (2nd ed.) Westport: Libraries Unlimited (pp. 13-27) Retrieved from
http://www.csu.edu.au/division/library/ereserve/pdf/kuhlthau4.pdf
Kuhlthau, C. (n.d.). Information search process. Retrieved from
http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~kuhlthau/information_search_process.htm

Leigh Gregerson 11494741

Page 12

Kuhlthau, C. Heinstrom, J. & Todd, R. (December 2008). The information search process
revisited: is the model still useful?. Information research, 13(4), 45. Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/ehost/detail?sid=82ad5dc3-e4ee-4062-9f12e426d3036c5e%40sessionmgr104&vid=2&hid=104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ
%3d%3d#db=lih&AN=36027251

Ladbrook, J. (2010). Our emerging net generation: Are they information literate?. New
Zealand journal of educational studies. 45(1), 67-75. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/761436519/fulltextPDF?
accountid=10344
Large, A. Beheshti, J. & Rahman, T. (2001). Gender differences in collaborative web
searching behaviour: An elementary school study. Information processing and management.
38(3), 427-443. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/10.1016/S03064573(01)00034-6
Limberg, L., Alexandersson, M., & Lantz-Andersson, A. (2008). To be lost and to be a loser
through the web. In T. Hansson (Ed.), Handbook of research on digital information
technologies: Innovations, methods, and ethical Issues (pp. 249-263). Hershey: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-970-0.ch017
Lloyde, A. & Williamson, K. (2008). Towards an understanding of information literacy in
context: Implications for research. Journal of librarianship and information science. 40(1). 312. Author version of the paper. CSU Research Output Showcasing CSU Research, 1-36.
Retrieved from http://bilby.unilinc.edu.au:1801/view/action/singleViewer.do?
dvs=1337309679378~101&locale=en_AU&VIEWER_URL=/view/action/singleViewer.do?
&DELIVERY_RULE_ID=10&application=DIGITOOL3&frameId=1&usePid1=true&usePid2=true
Markless, S., & Streatfield, D. (2009). Reconceptualising information literacy for the web 2.0
environment?. In S. Hatzipanagos, & S. Warburton (Eds.), Handbook of research on social
software and developing community ontologies (pp. 316-334). Hershey: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-208-4.ch022.
Leigh Gregerson 11494741

Page 13

McNaught, C. (2008). Information literacy in the 21st century. In L. Tomei (Ed.),


Encyclopedia of information technology curriculum integration (pp. 406-412). Hershey: IGI
Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-881-9.ch067.
Mills, S. C. (2006). Information problem-solving using the internet. In L. Tan Wee Hin, & R.
Subramaniam (Eds.). Handbook of research on literacy in technology at the K-12 level (pp.
357-371). Hershey: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-494-1.ch020
Ramirez, D. (2012). A high school librarians participation in supporting information literacy
on her campus. In I. Chen, & D. McPheeters (Eds.), Cases on educational technology
integration in urban schools (pp. 87-92). Hershey: Business Science Reference.
doi:10.4018/978-1-61350-492-5.ch021.
Tsai. C, Lin, S & Tsai, M. (2001). Developing an internet attitude scale for high school
students. Computers and education. 37(1), 41-51. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00033-1,
Voithofer, R. & Winterwood, F. (September 2010). Articulating and contextualizing multiple
literacies in an urban setting. Urban education. 45(5), 687-707.
doi:10.1177/0042085910377295

Wolf, S., Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2003). The big six information skills as a metacognitive
scaffold: A case study. School library media research. Retrieved from
http://www.ala.org/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume62003/bigsixinformat
ion

Wolf, S. (n.d.). Information Literacy and Self-regulation: a convergence of disciplines. School


library media research. Retrieved from
http://www.ala.org/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume10/wolf_informationl
iteracy
Leigh Gregerson 11494741

Page 14

Leigh Gregerson 11494741

Page 15

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi