ANCIL: integrating information literacy into the curriculum through research, reflection and collaboration . Dr Jane Secker & Dr Emma Coonan
•Transferir como PPT, PDF•
1 gostou•19,477 visualizações
Presented at: From the road less travelled to the information super highway: information literacy in the 21st Century. Friday, January 31st, 2014 at The British Library Conference Centre
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Semelhante a ANCIL: integrating information literacy into the curriculum through research, reflection and collaboration . Dr Jane Secker & Dr Emma Coonan
Semelhante a ANCIL: integrating information literacy into the curriculum through research, reflection and collaboration . Dr Jane Secker & Dr Emma Coonan (20)
Mais de IL Group (CILIP Information Literacy Group)
Mais de IL Group (CILIP Information Literacy Group) (20)
Último
Último (20)
ANCIL: integrating information literacy into the curriculum through research, reflection and collaboration . Dr Jane Secker & Dr Emma Coonan
- 1. ANCIL: integrating information literacy into the curriculum through research, reflection and collaboration Dr Jane Secker and Dr Emma Coonan ‘The road less travelled’, 31 January 2014
- 2. Overview ∗ Research principles ∗ Collaboration and applied research at LSE ∗ The student’s-eye view Image: ‘Tulip stair’ by mcginnley, CC BY-SA 2.0
- 7. Information literacy is a continuum of skills, behaviours, approaches and values that is so deeply entwined with the uses of information as to be a fundamental element of learning, scholarship and research. It is the defining characteristic of the discerning scholar, the informed and judicious citizen, and the autonomous learner. Secker and Coonan, ANCIL definition of information literacy, 2011
- 10. Collaboration and research at LSE Image cc from http://www.flickr.com/photos/notkaiho/5716096442/
- 11. Careers Language Centre Teaching & Learning Centre Language Centre LSE100 Departments Library Teaching & Learning Centre Departments Language Centre Library Departments LSE100 Language Centre Teaching & Learning Centre Careers Departments LSE100 Teaching & Learning Centre Departments Language Centre Library Library Centre for Learning Technology Library Library
- 13. Embedding vs integrating? “The immediate connotation of the term ‘embedding’ is placement and addition. While present in the [curriculum] it is neither integral nor integrated. It is there as an addon and can possibly be done without.” (Victor Lim Fei, 2012)
- 14. Challenging perceptions … “… if the teachers, whether they’re school or university teachers, don’t have the same view of IL that we do, it’s always going to be [about] the skills. And the skills are fine but anybody can teach the skills; it’s teaching the changing attitude and the different approach that I think has to come from the teachers.” (ANCIL Expert Consultation Report, 2011)
- 15. Research ∗ LSE Survey examined staff attitudes towards IL ∗ Also explored perceptions of librarians as teachers ∗ Evidence of Bury’s (2011) ‘disconnect’ ∗ Much IL optional, remedial – student self select ∗ Staff questioned relevance ∗ Need more evidence to show the value and impact of IL Image: ‘student_ipad_school - 002’ by Flickingerbrad, CC BY 2.0
- 17. Digital Literacies at LSE ∗ Pockets of good practice ∗ Strategy: New D& IL framework ∗ Pilots and review
- 18. The student’s-eye view Image: ‘Russian Dolls’ by Lachlan Fearnley, CC BY-SA 3.0 Thank you to Florence Dujardin (@afdujardin) for the matryoshka metaphor
- 20. UEA VIPER model Graduate identity as a complex mix of elements: ∗Values ∗Intellect ∗Performance ∗Engagement ∗Reflection = VIPER Image: ‘Vogel’s Pit Viper’ by Bernard Dupont, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
- 21. “It is as absurd to try and solve the problems of education by giving people access to information as it would be to solve the housing problem by giving people access to bricks.” (Diana Laurillard, 2002) Image: ‘Painted bricks’ by postbear, CC BY-NC--SA 2.0
- 22. Thank you! j.secker@lse.ac.uk / @jsecker e.coonan@uea.ac.uk / @LibGoddess newcurriculum.wordpress.com
- 23. Further reading ∗ Bell, Maria, Moon, Darren and Secker, Jane (2012) Undergraduate support at LSE: the ANCIL report. The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/48058/ ∗ Bury, Sophie (2011) Faculty attitudes, perceptions and experiences of information literacy: A study across multiple disciplines at York University, Canada. Journal of Information Literacy (5) 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/5.1.1513 ∗ Hinchliffe, Geoffrey and Jolly, Adrienne (2011) Graduate identity and employability, British Educational Research Journal 37(4) ∗ LSE Digital and Information Literacy Framework (2013) Available at: http://bit.ly/1gq63IO ∗ SADL Project (2014) Student Ambassadors for Digital Literacy. Available at: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsesadl/ ∗ Secker, Jane and Coonan, Emma. (2012) Rethinking Information Literacy: a practical framework for support learning. Facet Publishing: London ∗ Wrathall, Katy (2012) Strategies for Implementing ANCIL in Non-Cambridge HEIs. Available at: http://bit.ly/16kKb8b
Notas do Editor
- TIMINGS: Research background/principles (theory stuff) – M 10 mins Collaboration and research in practice at LSE – J 20 mins Reflection – making it seamless from the student’s point of view. Conceptual parallels and crossover with models of digital literacies (Beetham and Sharpe) and graduate attributes/identity – M 10 mins
- Research background/principles (theory stuff) – M 10 mins Collaboration and research in practice at LSE – J 20 mins Reflection – crossover with models of digital literacies (Beetham and Sharpe) and graduate attributes/identity – M 10 mins M * Research was part of Arcadia Programme at University of Cambridge – took place in an intensive 10-week fellowship (May to June 2011) Overall aim: to develop a practical curriculum and supporting resources for teaching IL in a digital age and in a way appropriate to the needs of undergraduates entering higher education over the subsequent 5 years
- M Research principles established right from the first day! – * Not about locating information but about what you do with it
- * Interconnection of information skills and academic skills (in the HE context) to present a seamless learning journey for the student
- * And possibly the most important principles: AVOID ASSIGNING ROLES – make sure no-one can say “it’s not my area” (ref. Hilsdon: “learning is everybody’s business” in a university).
- We have tried to broaden the understanding of IL to see it as a framework for learning that must be recognised and supported across the institution. Having such a framework is key to attracting students, to retaining them and scaffolding their academic development. It’s key to helping them make transitions between learning contexts, not just from school into higher education but from ‘discipleship’ or dependent modes of learning into independent learning such as is required at dissertation or extended research level, or when moving on to postgraduate research. And it’s key to how information is used and handled in daily life, in social contexts, and in the workplace. This is what makes it not only transitional but also transferable and ultimately transformational. [Needs to be taught in context: discipline, level Value needs to be recognised by faculty and curriculum designers Needs support at an institutional / strategic level Is not the preserve or saviour of the library]
- M ANCIL is divided into ten strands which together encompass not only key skills but also higher-order critical and intellectual thinking abilities. These strands offer a useful way of investigating existing IL provision within an institution. Each strand has learning outcomes, sample activities and sample assessment. 4 learning bands from key skills through application of those skills within the subject context; advanced information practices like synthesis, argument structuring and problem-framing, and reflective understanding of how our information practices affect our identity in academic, socially and in the workplace It is LEARNER centred – not a competency framework with externally assigned tickbox skills expressed in universal, monolithic language! Despite the name (“curriculum” – assigned to us by the academic lead) this is not 10 classes or training sessions but rather a way of thinking holistically across all the ingredients needed to use the appropriate information in the most persuasive way in any academic context (and beyond) So this also gives us a way to audit the insitution’s offering across all these strands. Who’s doing what, and how? Are there gaps? Overlaps? Contradictions? Is the student getting a seamless experience from all the providers involved in helping them to construct and sensemaking their learning?
- We’ve produced a range of research outputs including reports on the theoretical background and expert consultation, plus free downloadable resources that are all CC-licensed for reuse in your own institution Needs to be taught in context: discipline, level Value needs to be recognised by faculty and curriculum designers Needs support at an institutional / strategic level Is not the preserve or saviour of the library > Now Jane’s going to tell us about how this institutional auditing and join-up works in practice.
- Research background/principles (theory stuff) – M 10 mins Collaboration and research in practice at LSE – J 20 mins Reflection – crossover with models of digital literacies (Beetham and Sharpe) and graduate attributes/identity – M 10 mins
- J You can use ANCIL in different ways, and a common way has been to audit or review your provision. We have resources available for those interested in following this methodology. This proved a useful exercise at LSE, it was a way of starting a conversation about information literacy, but it also provided us with evidence that there might be gaps in the current provision, or areas of overlap or duplication – or possible mixed messages. It gave us a clearer picture of how information literacy was dealt with from the student’s perspective. Most recently at LSE we are starting to use our framework (based on ANCIL) as a way into talking to academic staff about what they want their students to learn and be able to do at the end of their course. It provides a structure for the teaching we can offer, and what has been important is to develop learning outcomes, but also to include example activities, so that staff can see what each of the strands means. Reference to ANCIL report (add to references)
- J Our vision of IL is broader and this ultimately means that it touches upon areas where others have expertise and so working in partnership is a central part of the ANCIL approach. The audits that have been carried out in several institutions have largely tried to explore where provision exists outside the library, so this can be co-orindated across the institutions….. This is where a strategy or framework may be helpful – it provides you with common ground But it is also why ANCIL is not prescriptive about who teaches information literacy. Success involves joining up IL provision across the institution and through a shared curriculum you can identify roles and responsibilities and make IL visible We’re not the only ones who need to adapt – curriculum change refers to mainstream academic curriculum, this means changing attitudes to teaching in academia, as well as changing the actual curriculum – which is hard and slow to change! Joining up support is about being learner centred – they come to University with a goal and a whole series of people and departments help them achieve that goal. We want to ensure that we are coordinated and seamless from their perspective, which doesn’t mean one department doing everything, but everyone working together as a team. This reflects a wider trend observed in a number of universities to place IL within a broader range of academic skills (Howard, 2012).
- J We really mean is integrating Thus, IL is about changing the curriculum = challenging! But ANCIL is not a framework to sit alongside the curriculum, it is not 10 sessions that can run in parallel to the curriculum. It is something to be ‘integrated’ into teaching. We have talked in the library world for a long time about ‘embedding’ IL in the curriculum – I was would argue we need to be integrating – which is subtly different. And may mean less direct teaching of students, but more planning and support with academic staff, so they can teach this stuff. The immediate connotation of the term ‘embedding’ is placement and addition. While present in the curriculum, it is neither integral nor integrated. It is there as an add-on and can possibly be done without. Meanwhile the term ‘integrating’, suggests that IL is an integral part of teaching and learning that is integrated in the curriculum. [Rooney & Ulanicka presentation] Ultimately we are talking about the need for curriculum change.
- J There are some perceptions around IL – in the library world and outside that we need to challenge. Librarians may be guilty of thinking IL is Going to save us NOR Is it necessarily understood by other support staff or by teachers But also: IL doesn’t belong to us (it’s not appropriate to see it as ‘the saviour of the library’ in a digital era). As Katy Wrathall has said “Ownership if a flawed concept”. Clare McCluskey’s research in LIR explored how to build partnerships to explore librarians as full partners in higher education, not just providers of services. This builds on earlier work by Claire McGuiness who had found most interactions between faculty and librarians were of the functional service provider nature. Faculty perceptions of IL McGuinness article back in 2006 : faculty perceptions – its related to student motivation, they will pick it up over time, they (the faculty) are already doing it, they pick it up from fellow students] We need to establish common ground and have a collective vision of the kind that could be achieved through a strategic framework like ANCIL (it’s happening at LSE, Derby, Worcs, YSJ … all in line with each institution’s particular needs.) Building partnerships is all about having a better understanding of what we each do.
- JANE This paper will explore how ANCIL was used to audit IL provision at LSE, outlining the audit process and considering its impact several months later, to highlight the issues and opportunities that arose. It will consider whether the audit process acted as a catalyst for change and whether it highlighted further issues and challenges. It will explore whether staff attitudes towards IL evolved following the audit or whether the ‘disconnect’ between expressed concerns about students’ IL abilities and actual practice, described by Bury (2011), persists. We will consider how effective the audit process was in convincing staff that integrating IL into the undergraduate curriculum should be a priority, as well as the impact the audit had on staff perceptions about the role of librarians as teachers. We will also consider the role that students can play in acting as ambassadors or champions and what we can learn from them about digital and information literacies.
- Students as partners – the SADL project 20 undergraduate students – 4 workshops
- Pockets Workshops for staff and PhD students since 2006: web presence, blogging, twitter all remain popular Embedded in PGCert since 2010 Being more strategic: D& IL framework Pilots in place to embed digital and information literacies in some courses (Statistics & Sociology) Reviewing provision of ‘skills’ across our core course for undergraduates of good practice
- M Let’s finish by looking at how our provision is experienced by students. Do they draw lines in the sand between the help they can get from the library, from learning enhancement, from study skills tutors, from Careers, from counsellling, from disability support …. ? Once again, this is about the extent to which the student gets a seamless experience from all the providers involved in helping them to construct and sensemaking their learning. There’s a significant conceptual shift taking place around what constitutes info literacy, digital literacy and employability. All have tended to be perceived in terms of acquirable tickbox ‘skills’ rather than complex cognitive practices. But now they are all starting to receive some of the acknowledgement they deserve as complex practices that encompass a spectrum of skills, attributes and values. A similar deepening of understanding is happening around learning enhancement, where there’s been a radical shift from an impoverished and often remedial discourse around ‘study skills’ towards a perception of learning development or learning enhancement as a set of socially constructed practices that relate closely to the learner’s identity. In all three cases aspects of the HE experience that were previously seen as secondary or as ‘support’ rather than mainstream, and as correspondingly simplistic or remedial, are now starting to be seen as crucial to learning and to the development of an individual’s identity as a learner, a graduate, an employee and an informed citizen.
- M JISC digital literacy - Institutional provision should encompass: a generic entitlement to access and skills, articulated in terms of ICT support, information literacy, learning opportunities and study skills recognition of, and support where appropriate for, for learners' use of personal technologies and social networks to support their studies clarity about what it means to know, to apply knowledge, to be critical and creative, in different subjects and disciplines, including the impact of digital technologies review, feedback and recognition (e.g. assessment) of learners' practices as they develop Based on Beetham & Sharpe’s model of digital information (literacy 2011) which emphasises the multi-level nature of this development by using a pyramid which has access and functional skills as the foundation layer, but which moves upwards through contextual practices to the identity level. Very similar to the ANCIL approach with its four successive ‘bands’ of key skills, contextual application, advanced information practices like synthesis, argument structuring and problem-framing, and reflective understanding of how our information practices affect our identity in academic, socially and in the workplace. Both these models attempt to show that it’s not enough simply to offer training in basic information skills, and that it’s vital to facilitate the development of high-level reflective and critical practices around digial information. (Equally, we have a responsibility in HE to ensure that every level of need is being met, especially in view of the digital divide.) Beetham & Sharpe multi-level model (2011) – in tandem with ANCIL, informed Cardiff’s dig.lits. Strategy. JISC’s digital literacies programme is built on this and states that: JISC report said digital literacies should be: Tutors need to be proactive in helping studemts Dl and IL needs to be embedded Learner’s need to be engaged in their own development Academic staff need to be engaged in rethinking their ‘knowledge practices’ Broadening out a lot of good work in IL Defining employability whole-institution, cross-context support for portfolio building so individual learners can integrate these elements – access and skills, subject-specific understanding, and personal practice/know-how – through reflection and planning Beetham & Sharpe – VERBS associated with various levels.
- M Hinchliffe & Jolley (2011) argue strongly that graduate identity/employability is not “something that is merely a series of attributes that can be enumerated and ticked off”. They suggest that graduate identity should be looked at instead in terms of values, intellect, performance and engagement. This has created the VIPER framework used at UEA. “Is information literacy an employability skill?” (Tristram Hooley, email). I don’t think IL can be made singular like that, and nor can it be fitted inside a larger concept in that way. Like matryoshka dolls, we’re always tempted in HE to put one concept inside another and see one as the larger or ruling idea. I don’t think you can reduce IL to the status of an employability skill – I think IL is a complex of situated practices that spans the whole range of “being employable”. But I wouldn’t seek to make ‘employability’ one aspect of IL, either, because again I think that would be making something small and singular that deserves to be seen as complex and transformative. Rather, I see info literacy (or digital literacy if you prefer that handle) and the development of graduate attributes as two ways of imaging the same concept of the individual’s journey towards a graduate identity.
- “Access without support is not opportunity” (Engstrom) Whether you look at graduate attributes; digital, information or learning literacies; or individual empowerment in any context, what you’re looking at – and what we are engaged in doing - is supporting people’s use of the approprate information in the most compelling way. There are many ways to facilitate this development whether you call it critical inquiry, information literacy, a reflective approach, learner autonomy – these are all ways of describing the same elusive thing, which is again the mission of higher education. It’s not a set of defined actions or competencies but a way of thinking about and approaching information, one that is closely tied in with the concept of learner agency as opposed to mandated competency standards. Zurkowski ECIL keynote 2013 (Istanbul) – IL is about empowering the general population, making it harder for those in authority to fool people. A revolutionary tool. Information can be dangerous, so if IL is not challenging, we are doing it wrong! So what we’re talking about is the role of HE in a wider educational and social enterprise. Ultimately this is not just about rethinking information literacy, but in the process, also rethinking higher education!