Part C – Reflection

I entered ETL401understanding Information Literacy in its simplest form, as a set of skills and abilities needed to perform information-related tasks. However, IL extends far beyond this. I now understand that IL also concerns the application of information competencies, the use of critical thinking and awareness, ethical decision making, the ability to distinguish between credible and deceptive information, how to manage information efficiently, and the confidence to present information accurately and fluently (CILIP, 2018, p. 3, & Waters, 2012). With the rise of digital technologies and electronic information, the information landscape has changed and will continue to change (Floridi, 2007). Therefore, teachers need to equip students with the skills and abilities associated with IL and the necessary information fluency to function as a responsible citizen in a future-focused world.

The implementation of IL, like any other teaching model, is still prone to limitations and challenges. In my forum post 5.4a, I briefly discussed some of the problems that the IL model can experience; these include, time constraints, group sizing, scaffolding restraints, lack of teacher collaboration or support, high unattainable expectations, and inadequate teacher/TL training or professional development in IL (Fitzgerald & Garrison, 2017). When progressing through parts A and C of assessment 3, I reflected on how these could affect the implementation of my inquiry unit. I surmised that time constraints would be my main challenge, as the lessons would occur once a week for 50 minutes, which is not enough time to implement a full Guided Inquiry (GI) model with the selected class. I combatted time constraints by using a modified Information Search Process (ISP) model with fewer stages of inquiry, giving students more time on each component.

Before commencing ETL401, IL models were something I had a vague understanding on; as I had a somewhat sound knowledge of GI in Science and STEM but not specifically in the context of Information Literacy, as well as the NSW ISP and the Big 6. However, I’d never heard of the PLUS or iLearn models. Module 5 extended my understanding on these IL models, characterising them as models that list and describes the steps needed for a user to move from ignorance to understanding when completing an inquiry task (ETL401, 2019). These steps should include at least 6 of the building blocks of IL – engaging, defining, initiating, locating, examining, selecting, comprehending, assessing, recording, sorting, organising, interpreting, communicating, synthesizing and evaluating (Abilock, 2015).

I was drawn between choosing either the GI or the NSW ISP when selecting a framework for the inquiry unit, as they both provide guided approaches suitable for the student demographic at Guyra Central School. In forum 5.3bI explored the advantages and disadvantaged of GI; and in much the same way, the NSW ISP promotes and supports academic research for all ages, is carefully and intentionally designed, is guided through scaffolding and modelling to achieve curriculum outcomes, and it teaches information literacy and management skills (ETL401, 2019, module 5). Much like GI, the NSW ISP comes with its own set of challenges; ISP is prone to something known as the dip, which occurs in the exploration or selection phase when students become overloaded with information and experience frustration and doubt (Fitzgerald, 2011, p. 27). This is a critical zone for intervention, so a team approach is key to implementing the ISP successfully. Another challenge is the length of time it takes for students to understand the information within the ISP task. However, the NSW ISP is a modified version of the original ISP and as a result, has fewer phases, meaning that more time can be spent on each phase and yield a firmer student understanding. This was my deciding factor when selecting the NSW ISP over GI.

Lupton (2012) wrote that “it is important for Teacher librarians to understand how inquiry is portrayed and sequenced in order to work with classroom teachers to implement the Australian curriculum” (p. 12). I attempted to comment on this importance in forum 5.3a but viewed the TL’s role as a supportive tool. Through reading forum posts and reflecting upon Lupton’s reading, I now understand that it is the TL’s responsibility to “bridge the gap between inquiry skills and information literacy” (Lupton, 2012). TL’s can bridge this gap because of their birds-eye-view of the curriculum due to their exposure to all year levels and subjects, while the classroom teacher may have a narrower take. Therefore, I believe that the collaboration between the TL and classroom teacher and embedding strong elements of IL into all aspects of the curriculum strengthens and bridges this gap.

 

Part C – References

Abilock, D. (2015). Information Literacy. Building blocks of research: Overview of design process and outcomes. Noodle Tools Inc. Retrieved from: https://web.archive.org/web/20160409135915/http://www.noodletools.com/debbie/literacies/information/1over/infolit1.html

Big6.org. (2018). The Big6. Retrieved from: https://thebig6.org

CILIP, 2018. CILIP definition of information literacy 2018, in Information Literacy Group. Retrieved from https://infolit.org.uk/ILdefinitionCILIP2018.pdf

ETL401, Charles Sturt University. (2019). ETL401 Module 5. Retrieved from: https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_42380_1&content_id=_2633966_1

Fitzgerald, L. & Garrison, K. (2017) ‘It Trains Your Brain’: Student Reflections on Using the Guided Inquiry Design Process, in Synergy, 15/2. Retrieved from: https://interact2.csu.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-2283107-dt-message-rid-5565787_1/courses/S-ETL401_201930_W_D/‘It%20Trains%20Your%20Brain’_%20Student%20Reflections%20on%20Using%20the%20Guided%20Inquiry%20Design%20Process.pdf

Floridi, L. (2007). A look into the future impact of ICT on our lives, in The Information Society, 23, p. 59-64. Retrieved from: http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=ba6fd08d-246c-4a78-8c37-4eb1f51b88ad%40sdc-v-sessmgr05&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=23519001&db=iih

Herring, J. (2004). PLUS Model: Purpose, Location, Use, and Self-evaluation. Retrieved from: https://farrer.csu.edu.au/PLUS/

Kahlthau, C . (2007). Information Search Process. Retrieved from: http://wp.comminfo.rutgers.edu/ckuhlthau/information-search-process/

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

Lupton, M. (2012). Inquiry skills in the Australian Curriculum, in Access 26(2), 12-8. Retrieved from: https://search-informit-com-au.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/fullText;dn=584040093322031;res=IELAPA

Neuman, D. (2004). I-Learn: Information Literacy for Learners. Retrieved from: http://ecil2013.ilconf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Neuman_ILEARNInformationLiteracy.pdf

New South Wales, Department of Education. (2007). Information Search. Retrieved from: https://nthsyddem-p.schools.nsw.gov.au/learning-at-our-school/library/information-process.html

Waters, J.K. (2012). Turning students into good digital citizens, in The Journal. Retrieved from: https://thejournal.com/Articles/2012/04/09/Rethinking-digital-citizenship.aspx