PART C: REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

When I began the Introduction to Teacher-Librarianship (ETL401) subject, I understood there were many ways librarians could contribute to the school, for example, providing technological support and managing resources (Clarke, 2018a). It is only after exploring the concepts of information literacy and Inquiry Learning I discovered the teacher-librarian’s role is much more extensive and closely linked to the roles of teachers, principals and support staff. Not only should we teach students the contemporary skills they will need throughout their life, we must also create connectedness by communicating and collaborating with other members of the school community.

Although information literacy is difficult to define, it is linked with the general, broad views of literacy in that it is based on comprehension and interpretation. My peers have discussed the importance of reading, writing, listening, viewing, speaking and representing (Mori, 2018), without which students would be unable to interact with information, but the essential stage of literacy models, including information literacy, is understanding. Combes (2016) webinar resonated with me when she stated ‘you have to be able to understand and interpret whatever it is you are reading, writing, listening, viewing or speaking about’. Her comments encouraged me to focus on students’ high-order thinking skills by requiring them to explain, create and evaluate whenever they learn about new concepts.

After reading and considering forum questions, I added the term ‘critical thinking’ to my definition of information literacy (Clarke, 2018b) and saw how aspects of information literacy had been incorporated into the Australian Curriculum in the form of general capabilities, specifically ‘critical and creative thinking’, ‘literacy’ and ‘information and communication technology’ (Australian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2017b). Weiner (2011) explains that information literacy and critical thinking do not need to be featured in the curriculum as separate entities (p.89) because they are closely connected and their definitions have many commonalities (p.82). Students are not literate if they are unable to create meaning.

Inquiry learning is way students can develop their information literacy skills (Chu, Tse & Chow, 2011), specifically the interpretation of materials and formation of knowledge, which is constructed through personal experiences and the exchange of ideas (Ackermann, 2001). Inquiry learning is not linked to specific syllabus content, so it becomes an ‘embedded…lifelong learning practice’, which is an essential element of information literacy (Andretta, 2006). It promotes deep thinking (Chu, Tse & Chow, 2011) and ensures student education is ‘personalised’ (Bushby, 2012) because the central ideas are based on a constructivist approach to learning. During the inquiry process, students are able to able to play and explore, which leads to creation and invention (Bushby, 2012). Through wide reading I discovered the process is also a way to encourage gifted and talented students to grow because it fits their instructional needs: ‘open, authentic tasks with high levels of abstraction and complexity’ (Eysink, Gersen & Gijlers, 2015, p. 63).

Eysink, Gersen and Gijlers (2015) state that students need support if inquiry learning is to be successful (p.64), so I now understand the librarian’s role is to provide specific instruction and guide students as they explore and use information, which may not be the case when class teachers introduce projects during the instruction of subject-specific content (Maniotes & Kuhlthau, 2014). The librarian should also ensure they use processes that are authentic and transferable because these are some of the main features of inquiry learning (Maniotes & Kuhlthau, 2014).

Academics advise schools to adopt a whole school approach to information literacy (Mertes (2014; Herring & Bush, 2013), so collaboration and communication are important for teachers and librarians but these 21st Century skills are also essential to students and the learning process. This is why I believe the Guided Inquiry Design (GID) (Kuhlthau, Maniotes & Caspari, 2012a) is an effective model for TLs to use with students. Kulthau, Maniotes and Caspari (2012b) emphasise the development of positive inquiry communities and encourage the use of inquiry circles. Their process means students are ‘interested to learn more and share with others’ (Maniotes & Kuhlthau, 2014, p.12). Garrison and Lee’s study (2016) highlights the importance of collaboration in the Guided Inquiry process.

GID has also been recognised as a vigorous and effective inquiry model. Mertes (2014) stated that models such as the Big6 and PLUS models are lacking in comparison to GID because they aren’t ‘empirically-based’ and neglect or minimise initial research stages (p. 161). After I perused Garrison and Lee’s summary of their GI project (2016), the quality of the model was reiterated. They revealed that GI is memorable for students. The study also showed that the skills the students learnt were transferable and a basis for lifelong learning was established. The research I explored consolidated my choices for the final ETL401 assignment.

Although inquiry learning has its downfalls, such as the need for extensive time, resources and support (Verdun, 2018), various models would be beneficial for students. Neuman’s iLearn model (Neuman, 2013), for example, has proven successful in some studies (Neuman, Grant, Lee & Decarlo, 2015) in that students were able to understand the process due to the clear, ‘kid-friendly’ steps. Research tasks were accessible and no longer ‘mysterious’ (p.44). Similarly, Herring’s PLUS model, as discussed in Herring, Tarter and Naylor (2002), encourages students to actively participate in research tasks and reflect on their learning (p.21).

In the past, I have valued traditional forms of literacy, particularly those associated with teaching English. Through this subject I have realised that information literacy is also essential in our modern society. Students must understand how to access, understand and use information because the expanding Internet can be confusing and overwhelming.

References

Australian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (2017b). General capabilities. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/

Bushby, B. (2012). Inquiry learning is deep learning. Every Child, 18(2), 30-32. Retrieved from https://search-informit-com-au.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/fullText;res=AEIPT;dn=193562

Chu, S., Tse, S., & Chow, K. (2011). Using collaborative teaching and inquiry project-based learning to help primary school students develop information literacy and information skills. Library and Information Science Research, 33, 132-143. DOI: https://doi.org/10/1016/j.lisr.2010.07.017

Clarke. J. (2018a, March 1). The Teacher/Librarian Amalgamation [blog post]. Retrieved from https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/conanthelibrarian/

Clarke. J. (2018b, May 2). Literacy [blog post]. Retrieved from https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/conanthelibrarian/

Combes, B. (2016). Information change and issues [Video webinar]. Retrieved from https://connect.csu.edu.au/p46nev0a746/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal

Herring, J., & Bush, S. (2013). Information literacy transfer in schools: implications for teacher librarians. The Australian Library Journal, 60(2), 123-132. DOI:10/1080/00049670.2011.10722584

Herring, J., Tarter, A-M., & Naylor. S. An evaluation of the use of the PLUS Model to develop pupils’ information skills in a secondary school. School Libraries Worldwide, 8(1), 1-24. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/217754435/fulltextPDF/ACDA01306F32411BPQ/1?accountid=10344

Kuhlthau, C., Maniotes, L., & Caspari, A. (2012). Guided Inquiry Design. Retrieved from http://wp.comminfo.rutgers.edu/ckuhlthau/guided-inquiry-design/

Kuhlthau, C., Maniotes, L., & Caspari, A. (2012b). Guided Inquiry Design [ABC-CLIO]. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/lib/CSUAU/detail.action?docID=1887925.

Mainotes, L., & Kuhlthau, C. (2014). Making the shift. Knowledge Quest, 43(2), 8-17. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/1620878836

Mori, S. (2018, 30 April). Re: Forum 5.1 [Online forum comment], Message posted to https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/discussionboard/do/message?action=list_messages&course_id=_34577_1&nav=discussion_board_entry&conf_id=_60958_1&forum_id=_117467_1&message_id=_1609312_1

Neuman, D. (2013). I-Learn: Information literacy for learners. Retrieved from http://ecil2013.ilconf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Neuman_ILEARNInformationLiteracy.pdf

Neuman, D., Grant, A., Lee V., & M. Decarlo (2015). Information and digital literacy in a high-poverty urban schhol: an I-LEARN project (Report). School Libraries Worldwide, 21(1), 38-63.

Verdun, M. (2018, 23 April). Re: Forum 5.2_2 [Online forum comment], Message posted to https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/discussionboard/do/message?action=list_messages&course_id=_34577_1&nav=discussion_board_entry&conf_id=_60958_1&forum_id=_117467_1&message_id=_1609309_1

The traditional definitions of literacy mentioned by Fitzgerland and Coombes (2018) are all more than twenty-five years old but critical thinking is still a feature of modern education systems (Australian Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority, 2016a). Therefore, although new formats and delivery modes may require students to develop advanced technical skills, understanding and critical thinking are at the centre of contemporary literacies.

As Barbara Combes has stated, ‘literacy is understanding…you have to be able to understand and interpret whatever it is you are reading, writing, listening, viewing or speaking about’ (2016). In other words, students must be able to use what they have learnt through their interactions with a text or process in order to demonstrate understanding, regardless of the mode. Comprehension is also highlighted as a significant component of the literacy capability within the Australian Curriculum (Australian Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority, 2016b). Visual literacy, for example, involves not only the ability to view or ‘read’ an image, but also the ability to understand the image (Baker, 2012).

Critical thinking is mentioned in various frameworks and plans associated with twenty-first century learning (P21, 2015; Glen Waverly Secondary College, 2014) and this reinforces its relevance in modern society. It is a way of developing and demonstrating understanding and is ‘at the core of most intellectual activity’ (Australian Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority, 2016b). It enables students to develop the skills they need to understand ideas and texts in the future. Interpretation is one such skill mentioned by ACARA (2016a) that can be applied to an image but also to multiple formats and concepts, including information.

International, national and local communities influence literacy and its meaning (UNESCO, 2006) but the processes and skills are still relevant in various contexts. For example, interpreting images is a process that occurs throughout the world, it’s only the end result that differs due to cultural and personal factors.

References

Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority. (2016a). Creative and Critical Thinking. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/critical-and-creative-thinking/

Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority. (2016b). Literacy. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/literacy/

Combes, B. (2016). Information change and issues [Video webinar]. Retrieved from https://connect.csu.edu.au/p46nev0a746/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal

Baker, F.W. (2012). Media Literacy in the K-12 Classroom [International Society for Technology in Education]. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/docs/excerpts/MEDLIT-excerpt.pdf

Fitzgerald, L., & Coombes, (2018). B. ETL401, Module 5.1 [course notes]. Retrieved from https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_34577_1&content_id=_2060435_1

Glen Waverly Secondary College. (2014). 21st Century Skills Framework. Retrieved from http://www.gwsc.vic.edu.au/21st-century-skills-framework

P21. (2015). P21 Framework definitions. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_Framework_Definitions_New_Logo_2015.pdf

UNESCO. (2006). Understandings of literacy. Education for all: Literacy for life. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/GMR2006/full/chapt6_eng.pdf

Current testing procedures such as NAPLAN can affect students’ acquisition of 21st century skills, specifically general capabilities such as ‘critical and creative thinking’ (ACARA, 2016), because teachers are forced to change their pedagogies in response to severe expectations. Many educators focus on test preparation and ‘inquiry-based, collaborative and integrated learning’ suffers (Mayes & Howell, 2017, p. 2).

Bousfield and Ragusa assert that tests such as NAPLAN result in the ‘adultification of childhood’ (Bousfield and Ragusa, 2014, 170). Like teachers, students are also being made accountable, and this means they experience stress and anxiety when exposed to standardised tests. They are drawn away from the play-based inquiries that can lead to important, meaningful discoveries.

REFERENCES

ACARA. (2016). General capabilities. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/

Bousfield, K., & Ragusa, A. (2014). A sociological analysis of Australia’s NAPLAN and My School Senate Inquiry submissions: the adultification of childhood?, Critical Studies in Education, 55:2, 170-185. doi:10.1080/17508487.2013.877051

Mayes, E., & Howell, A. (2017). The (hidden) injuries of NAPLAN: two standardised test events and the making of ‘at risk’ student subjects. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1-16. doi:10.1080/13603116.2017.1415383

‘Principal support is vital’ (Haycock, 2007, p.31). There are various ways principals and teacher librarians can work together:

*Principals can encourage relationships between classroom teachers and TLs and provide time for them to coordinate. Principals could also be involved in the consultation and planning processes. There is a correlation between student achievement and whole-school collaboration (Farmer, 2007; Haycock, 2007).

*Teacher librarians and principals should form clear goals. A ‘shared vision’ (Hancock, 2007, p.31) is an important aspect of the TL/principal relationship.
Principals must ensure librarians have the funding, resources and education they need to provide the school with relevant resources and services. Many principals identify funding as a key issue (Hughes, 2013).

*Principals can provide classroom teachers with educational opportunities in relation to using the library. High expectations of teachers will promote stronger relationships between teachers and TLs (Oberg, 2006).

*Effective communication must exist. TLs need to ensure the principal has a clear understanding of the library’s purpose (Oberg, 2006).

*Principals should model effective practices by visiting the library and promoting ‘positive reading experiences’ (Farmer, 2007, p.58).

*Teacher librarians can support the principal by researching issues relevant to education and school administration (Farmer, 2007).

REFERENCES
Farmer, L. (2007). Principals: Catalysts for collaboration. School Libraries Worldwide, 13(1), 56-65.

Haycock, K. (2007). Collaboration: Critical success factors for student learning. School Libraries Worldwide, 13(1), 25-35.

Hughes, H. (2013). Findings about Gold Coast Principal’s views of school libraries and teacher librarians. Chapter 8, School libraries, teacher librarians and their contribution to student literacy development in Gold Coast schools. Research report.

Oberg, D. (2006). Developing the respect and support of school administrators. Teacher Librarian, 33(3), 13-18.