My Other Blog Has Information, Too!

Instead of repeating information here, even though it is related, I'm just going to link to it (isn't that, after all, the whole point of being online?!). So, here goes:

• Wednesday, November 14, 2007: Notes from the Georgia Conference on Information Literacy, http://mywabbit.blogspot.com/2007/11/notes-from-georgia-conference-on.html
• Saturday, March 8, 2008: Call for Proposals - 2008 Graduate Research Network, http://mywabbit.blogspot.com/2008/03/call-for-proposals-2008-graduate.html
• 2007 Georgia Conference on Information Literacy Pre-Conference Panel: "Scholarly Communication in the 21st Century"
• Call for Proposals, Georgia Conference on Information Literacy, Savannah, GA, October 3-4, 2008

Very strange (and I can't figure out exactly why), but sometimes links don't work until I press the enter key.... Hmmm, I'll have to figure this out someday. If you have problems accessing any of these URLs, try that and see what happens. Let me know if you have a solution to the problem!

I know, I know. It's been a very long time since I've added to this blog--and LOTS has happened in the world of LILAC. But that will have to wait until I have more time.

Right now, I just want to jot down a few notes/quotes from some reading I've been doing. So, here goes.

From "Non-existence of Systematic Education on Computerized Writing in Japanese Schools," by Taku Sugimoto (Computers and Composition 24 (2007): 317-328).

"For high school students, a new subject called 'information studies' is introduced in the current Course of Study. It has three major goals: to develop practical skills of using information, to understand information scientifically, and to cultivate attitudes to actively participate in the information society. There are three different courses under this subject. All the courses cover the three goals above, but the weight placed on each is different. Information Studies A, for example, lays stress on basic practical skills, and in teching those skills it touches on scientific and social issues. Information Studies B puts more emphasis on the scientific understanding of information while Information Studies C deals more with issues related to the information society. Every high school student in the country is mandated to take one of these courses" (320).

I really think this gets at something I've been thinking a lot about--that our current curriculum needs to be reformed. That is, instead of teaching research as part of writing instruction, I'd like for us to dump our "Freshman English" or "Composition" classes entirely (based as they are on an antiquated 19th century model) and, instead, teach "Information Literacy"--perhaps, as here, as a sequence of courses, each building upon the other (and, of course, offering "just-in-time" instruction!).

The article continues: "Besides these subjects for ordinary senior high school students, a vocational course in informatics [emphasis added] was established in the current Course of Study for those students who will enter the information industry right after graduation from high school. And a professional subject course in information studies was created for their education and covers such topics as information and expression, algorithms, development of information systems, network systems, simulations, computer design, processing figures and pictures, multimedia expressions, and so on" (320-21).

"Besides these subject matters on informatics, the Course of Study is designed to encourage information and communication technologies in all the subjects (i.e., mathematics, social studies, and so on). Giving students access to digital technologies for learning and teaching is intended to familiarize children with computers and other information/communication technologies" (321).

So, yeah, this article is dealing more with teaching communication technology, but the idea, I think, is the same, since the courses aren't just teaching how to deal with the technology.

Another article in the same issue deals with game playing, but it, too, I think references some lessons for LILAC, specifically, James Paul Gee's work:

From "On the Bright Side of the Screen: Material-world Interactions Surrounding the Socialization of Outsiders to Digital Spaces," by Sally W. Chandler, Joshua Burnett, and Jacklyn Lopez (Computers and Composition 24 (2007): 346-364).

"Similar to principles Gee attributes to games, Jackie and Josh position the learner to discover what she needs (Discovery Principle) and provide information only when the learner is on the verge of giving up (Explicity Information On-Demand and Just-in-Time Principle) [emphasis added]. Directions help learners master the interface and provide support as they shift from material to digital styles for learning. This support differs from Gee's principles in that it is directed toward a learner who is outside the class of learners this particular game is designed to teach. The kind of person-to-person, material world support Jackie and Josh provide is particularly necessary for outsiders invested in semiotic practices inconsistent with practices built into the learning context. Experienced gamers' questions are answered by the game itself, but outsiders' different patterns for learning and making meaning make the game's information virtually inaccessible; cultural outsiders and technological newcomers initially need personalized, material-world support to use virtual spaces as places to learn" (356-57).

I think this is especially applicable to teaching information literacy skills in that we need to consider how to scaffold lessons. That is, considering learners (our students) as "cultural insiders/outsiders" can help us provide just-in-time instruction at various levels as needed by the learner, keeping in mind that not all of our students will enter the instructional model at the same levels. Or something like that.

By the way, Gee's book could be interesting to apply to our project:

Gee, James Paul. What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003).

Teaching, Assessment, and Information Literacy

I had a conversation with a literature professor the other day, one who assigns in-class essay exams. He says that he wished he could use computers for these exams because he recognizes that students are no longer used to writing by hand. However, he continued, this isn't an option because he needs to know that his students aren't cheating and, he argues, that he cannot know this if he allows them to complete the work on a computer.

But, sez I, you can't know that anymore (in a world where eyeglasses or even articles of clothing can be computers). Our challenge is to quit worrying about outmoded teaching and assessment measures. What we really need to be teaching instead are information literacy skills allowing (nay, requiring) students to be online. Can students recognize when they need to find information? What kind of information they need? How (and where) to find it? How to evaluate it? And how to integrate and/or syntehsize what they find?

How often, in the so-called "real" world, I asked, do we need to write these kinds of "on-demand" treatises without reference to other sources? If the assessment is merely about memory (that is, if you want students to merely show they remember who said what), then, fine, give them a multiple choice test.

But why not assign "essay" exams that also challenge students to integrate important information literacy skills?

I actually lost the argument with the professor. He will continue to do what he's always done (as long as he can, I suppose). But even the Educational Testing Service (ETS) is moving in the direction of testing information literacy skills rather than memory. So maybe there is indeed hope for the future (or, I would argue, hope that eventually what we teach in the classroom--and how we test students' knowledge--will actually relate to what our students need to know outside the classroom.

From "Information Literacy Makes All the Wrong Assumptions" by Stanley Wilder (Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 51, Issue 18, 1/7/2005, p. B-13):

"Information literacy is also harmful because it encourages librarians to teach ways to deal with the complexity of information retrieval, rather than to try to reduce that complexity. . . . Almost any student could suggest a better alternative: that the library create systems that eliminate the need for instruction.

"How might the model of reading and writing work in practice at the reference desk? A librarian would first try to find out what kind of writing assignment a student needs help with and where he is in the writing process. For example, a librarian helping an undergraduate on a term paper in art history might help him [sic] pick or narrow his topic, point him to standard reference works like the 34-volume Dictionary of Art for background reading, and offer suggestions on how to follow the citations in those works to other material. The librarian might show him relevant databases or print collections for supporting evidence, and provide help in preparing a bibliography.

"Each interview at the reference desk does not need to include a complete review of the writing process, but the writing process should provide the framework for the librarian's response to the student's request for help. The library's educational function would be to make students better writers, according to the standards of the discipline [emphasis added]. Librarians would not be teaching students to become librarians, but to absorb and add to their disciplines in ways that make them more like their professors.

"The library must also do a better job of reaching more students, more often. Librarians need to use their expertise to make the library's online presence approach the simplicity and power of the Internet.

"By pairing instruction with smart information-technology systems, we can create educational programs that reach everyone on our campuses, every time they turn to us. No educational model that focuses exclusively on instruction can say as much."

***

While I appreciate much of what Wilder has to say here, I have to take issue with a few of his assumptions.

1. As a writing teacher, I certainly take issue with his assertion that the librarian's job is to teach writing. First of all, this assumes that writing can be taught by anyone who can write. Librarians are experts in their discipline, but they are not trained to teach writing.
2. I think Wilder's understanding of the terms "information literacy," at least as presented in this admittedly brief piece, is a bit essentializing. He says, "The premise of information literacy is that the supply of information has become overwhelming, and that students need a rigorous program of instruction in research or library-use skills, provided wholly or in part by librarians." However, he continues, "information literacy remains the wrong solution to the wrong problem facing librarianship. It mistakes the nature of the Internet threat, and it offers a response at odds with higher education's traditional mission. Information literacy does nothing to help libraries compete with the Internet, and it should be discarded." It's this "either/or" fallacy that I think is the problem with Wilder's assertions--and with many of the approaches to fostering information literacy in a digital age that I have seen. The library is, after all, online. It's not about using the library OR using the Internet anymore....

LILAC is dedicated to finding a way to assist students (and others) to locate, evaluate, and synthesize information--whether that information is online or in print (or in some other medium)--by helping them to know

• when information is needed,
• what kind of information is needed,
• where to go to locate that information,
• how to evaluate what they find,
• how to integrate the information they discover with their own ideas,
• and finally, how to adequately cite information, ideas, words, pictures, and other borrowings.

Using a just-in-time learning model can help integrate the teaching (and learning) of these essential information literacy skills into the reading-and-writing model Wilder argues for.

Welcome to LILAC!

Learning Information Literacy Across the Curriculum (LILAC) is a project joining faculty and librarians at Georgia Southern University to foster information literacy skills for the twenty-first century. We have BIG plans!!

This blog has been created as a space to discuss our plans, post links or other information of interest to the LILAC group, and play with the possibilities.

We welcome comments from others interested in this initiative. For more information, please email Janice R. Walker at jwalker@georgiasouthern.edu or post your comments/questions to our blog.