ADDIE & Information Literacy

Last week in class we went more in depth with the ADDIE framework of lesson planning and we also talked about formative assessment.  It let me to wonder how instructional librarians are assessed.  What are the specific outcomes they are looking for?  A friend of mine, also a former classroom teacher, described an encounter he had with a group of instructional librarians at the college level who were complaining about the students they were working with; no matter what library tools they were introduced to, they went back to Google.  The librarians were quick to blame their high school teachers and librarians, but ultimately, where does the buck stop?  I've heard high school teachers blame middle school teachers, and middle school teachers blame elementary teachers.  Ultimately it can all come back to parents and we give ourselves permission to not take responsibility for students' learning NOW.

The value of formative assessments goes beyond understanding where students are in moving forward with assessment an giving constructive feedback; it also does a great deal in informing a teacher's mindset.      With formative assessment, the teacher becomes responsible for the continuing growth of the student.  Not just did they reach mark "x" but how far did they come to get there.  I would be interested in seeing more outcome-based instruction from librarians, in the ADDIE model.

To that end, I was interested in seeking out materials on collaboration with librarians and instructors when determining my readings for this week.  I am interested in becoming an outreach librarian in an archive or special collection, specifically working with teachers to bring students in contact with special materials.

The first article I read, "Information Literacy: A Collaborative Endeavor," discussed a program at SUNY Albany that offered undergraduate students a one or two unit course taught in collaboration between a professor and a librarian.  Although collaborative relationships are welcomed in most universities, it is understandable that both professors and librarians become so overwhelmed with their separate arenas that they don't seek each other out unless it is absolutely necessary.  Unfortunately, this is a great disservice to students.  I love the idea of collaborative classes planned and implemented by teachers and librarians.

The next article I read, "Information Literacy: The Changing Library," explored the necessity of Information Literacy in the next generation.  The author described how the tools of the "Information Age" are already breaking down walls between teaching and librarianship, and encourages both groups to work together to make sure students are prepared for the world that awaits them.

Finally, I read "Information Literacy for Primary Sources."  Yakel explores how new methods for primary source research instruction need to be explored.  Where traditionally researchers using primary source material interacted with a reference librarian at an archive, now they are without that mediation using digital archives.  The exciting part of this for me is to ability to adapt these new introductory materials, whether they be videos or podcasts, for younger users; to differentiate and make archive materials open to a wide variety of audiences without that much extra work.


Works Cited

Kapitzke, Cushla (2001): Information Literacy: The Changing Library, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59-69.

Mackey, Thomas P. & Trudi E. Jacobson (2005): Information Literacy: A Collaborative   Endeavor, College Teaching, 53:4, 140-144, http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.4.140-144

Yakel, Elizabeth (2004): Archives and Manuscripts: Information Literacy for Primary Resources: Creating a New Paradigm for Archival Researcher Education, International Digital Library Perspectives, 20:3, 61-64

Reading, Week 2: One Shot Workshops and Online Teaching Tools

This week we read Jerilyn Veldof's introduction to one-shot workshop development, as well as three papers describing efforts to develop on-line teaching tools for self-directed information literacy skill building.  Veldof addressed something that I have been thinking a lot about in my developing understanding of what instruction means in the library setting.  In most settings, librarians are very restricted in the sense that they may only have one 50-minute block to impart all of their information to patrons.  There is little opportunity for that dynamic of assessment and feedback, or targeting specific holes in patron knowledge.  The ADDIE method (which I learned in Ed School as "backwards design") will definitely serve librarians in using that time the best they can, thinking thoughtfully about where they want patrons to be at the end of their lesson.  This level of planning will allow for librarians to have a concrete idea of what they need to accomplish so that they can plan to meet those goals.

In thinking about the variety of online tools developers are creating for independent learning, I see a great potential cor synthesizing the two methods.  My fear with relying on online tutorials, like the ones described in Yilenek (2008), Johnston (2010), and Griffis (2009) is that they are successful only in lower-level thinking skills.  They can encourage users to remember processes, but not to analyze, evaluate, or create.  I love the image I found, linking the different layers of Blooms Taxonomy to online skills.  It's apt that Wikipedia is on the upper level-- sure, you could have an online tutorial teaching users about Wikipedia, and even mention evaluating skills, but unless they are able to do that first hand, with feedback, I don't feel safe as an information professional "releasing them into the wild."

What if we were able to combine these skills- all basic skills were taught on online tutorials as described by the authors- where users could go at their own pace and target skills that they want to work with, and librarians focus on the higher order thinking skills that need in person feedback?  I have a great fear that in the age of No Child Left Behind we are only focusing on these lower level skills, leaving little ability to evaluate or create.  Let's use librarians for those purposes! 

Lecture 1 Reflection

In our first lecture we discussed the growing importance of instruction in the field of librarianship. As ready reference questions become less frequent in the age of Google, and research becomes more i dependent, it is ever more important that patrons learn how to find and evaluate sources for their information needs.

This discussion made me think of the instruction provided to me during my undergraduate and graduate studies. Though I completed an independent honors thesis in history, I never consulted a librarian at my undergraduate institution. Why? Looking back I know I only brushed the surface of true, authentic research. I clearly respect librarians, as I am following their path in my own professional choices. I knew where librarians were posted in all of the libraries I worked in.  And still, I had little interaction with them.

I see this as a great disappointment.  Several of my research classes had information sessions with librarians, but they were repetitive, and only barely brushed the surface of materials.  I can't remember anything remarkable that I learned beyond how to put an asterisk after a search term to broaden it.  I worked only with general librarians, none that specialized in history.  They only showed me collections Berkeley had; they didn't show me how to access the world of libraries they were connected with.

I feel really fortunate that I have a background in education and so can work to improve the field of librarian instruction.  I am eager to see more effective practices that librarians put in place this semester.

Reflection 1: The Science of Learning

In chapter one of How People Learn, the authors explained traditional misconceptions about how students learn best.  New trends in education have taken the emphasis away from the student as an empty vessel, ready to be filled with knowledge by a lecturing authority, or teacher.  Instead, studies have shown that students learn and retain more knowledge by experiencing learning at a deeper level- through learning concepts and then putting these concepts in practice.

This is one thing in a classroom where a teacher has time to get to know the students and plan group inquiry learning experiences that last beyond a single class period, but implementing these ideas in single library programming sessions seems close to impossible.  The basis of the idea in How People Learn is that instructors need to base their plans on their knowledge of students' prior knowledge.  It will be more challenging for librarians who either (1) work in a public library and can't be quite certain which students will come, and for how many consecutive weeks they will be participating or (2) work in a school library where they likely have very limited time with students and have the task of working with all of the students in the school.  I am very interested to see how librarians incorporate these new education concepts with the restrictions described above.

The second chapter of How People Learn focused on comparing 'experts' in fields with 'novices,' and the types of tasks the two groups perform and are best situated for success in.

The last technology class that I participated in focused on promoting us more to the 'expert level.'  The instructor accomplished this by explaining tools instead of merely following repetitive tasks.  On all of our assignments we were supported by encouraging us to work together and to use tools to figure out problems on our own.

This will take a great role in the reference interview; in using the reference interview as an opportunity to show users tools to help them become experts at the search tools we use.  Of course, we still share the same challenges I described earlier, however with this new knowledge we can better focus on the goals we have for instructing patrons to make them experts.