Throughout this subject my thoughts and opinions on information literacy have evolved and expanded immensely. I found the explanations of the behaviourist and sociocultural approach really interesting. Previously I would have thought of information literacy as a set of skills and behaviours attained by the individual so it was important for my understanding to read more about the sociocultural approach. Reading Recasting information literacy as sociocultural practice: Implications for library and information science researchers by AnneMaree Lloyd was incredibly enlightening and her discussion around revising the definition of information resonated with me. Looking at the process of information literacy as something that is ‘holistic, as it involves the ‘whole body’ being in and engaging with a range of information modalities’ (Lloyd, 2007 Ch. 2). I can now see how crucial this is to enable students to successfully transfer their information literacy skills beyond their life at school.
Before undertaking this subject my very superficial knowledge of information literacy was solely on the experience of the students and how they best understood and applied information literacy to their own learning. I hadn’t before considered how information literacy was managed within my organisation on a professional level. In my forum post in Forum 5.2 I discussed how I can still see a large disconnect within our school in terms of those that can access and understand information easily there are still a large number of the employees in my workplace that either don’t have the access or may struggle with understanding the information. Because we disseminate a huge amount of staff communication online we are potentially disenfranchising some of our staff and perpetuating the cycle as outlined in Cook and Greenwood’s article Cleaners don’t need computers: Bridging the digital divide in the workplace (2008).
Upon leaving university with my Masters of Teaching I was lucky enough to gain employment at my current school. I have worked as a both a classroom teacher and now as a TL so after 7 years I have a solid understanding of how we run our inquiry units. We use the Big 6 inquiry model and it is a case of ‘that’s what we have always done’ however as Maniotes and Kulthau point out this can ‘continue to maintain the gap between what we know about how students learn through research and assignment design’ (2014, p 9). From completing the relevant readings and modules it appears that the i-Learn model is extremely similar to the Big 6 inquiry model. They both have 6 steps that, despite different names, are eliciting the same student outcomes. From both personal experience and upon comparison with other inquiry models it doesn’t appear that the i-Learn or the Big 6 models are particularly effective. They seem to just act as checkpoints to make sure that the students are moving through their research task. I was interested to read that in an experimental study looking into the effectiveness of the i-Learn model that students who were instructed in the model were not performing any better or worse than those who didn’t receive the instruction (University of Kentucky, 2017, p 3).
In comparison upon reading about Guided Inquiry and the ISP process I instantly resonated with the process. I found that the connection between giving students a solid, transferable set of inquiry skills coupled with the acknowledgement that the ‘users experience in the process of information seeking as a series of thoughts, feelings and actions’( Kuhlthau, para. 2). The holistic nature of the inquiry model allows students to not only acknowledge the thoughts and feelings that they may have during the research process but also prepare for potential feelings either positive or negative. Another key aspect to the Guided Inquiry model that sets it apart is that students are invited to explore the topic or concept first before reaching an area of interest for further inquiry. I agree with Maniotes and Kuhlthau in that when undertaking traditional inquiry units ‘students get mired in the collection stage of research and end up merely reporting on disconnected facts’ (2014, p 10). However, the Guided Inquiry model allow the students time to read and reflect and then ‘formulate a focussed question that is interesting and important in the context of the essential question’ (Maniotes & Kuhlthau, 2014, p. 12).
The teacher librarian’s role within inquiry learning is tantamount. We are the information specialists in our schools so we should be championing information literacy. If our schools don’t have a solid information literacy curriculum then we should push for it and if we already have one in place then we should be revising it, refreshing it and facilitating its implementation. I agree with Elizabeth Patterson’s forum post in Forum 5.4_1 where she discussed ‘true collaboration’ (2018) was needed in order for the teacher librarian to assist their school achieve integrated information literacy. Patterson went on to elaborate that this collaboration would be broken into four different realms.
“Collaboration with leaders (by trying to strategically align the library goals with the school vision and plan); collaboration with teachers (by working as partners in planning and teaching, and by supporting teachers to develop their capacity to teach IL); collaboration with students (by supporting them to pursue their interests and personal inquiries at point of need); and collaboration with the wider school community (by sharing information about IL with parents, and inviting community members to contribute to learning)” (2018).
I do not agree that the job of teaching information literacy should fall solely on the teacher librarian instead I feel it should a whole school approach with the teacher librarian as leader. They should be the champion of information literacy and be able to support classroom teachers and guide them on best practice.
As I conclude my first semester of teacher librarian study I can see even more clearly how important it is for TL’s to get out from behind the books and reach out their colleagues, students and parent body and build those connections!
References:
Cooke, L. & Greenwood, H. (2008). Cleaners don’t need computers: Bridging the digital divide in the workplace. AslibProceedings, 60(2), 143-157.
Fitzgerald, L. & Sheerman, A. (2017). Guided Inquiry in Australia. Retrieved from http://guidedinquiryoz.edublogs.org/
Kuhlthau, C. (n.d.) Information Search Process. Rutgers: School of Communication and Information. Retrieved from http://wp.comminfo.rutgers.edu/ckuhlthau/information-search-process/
Kuhlthau, Carol C., et al. (2012) Guided Inquiry Design: A Framework for Inquiry in Your School. Pearson Education. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csuau/detail.action?docID=1887925.
Lloyd, A. (2007). Recasting information literacy as socio-cultural practice: implications for library and information science researchers. Inf. Res., 12.
Maniotes, L.K, Kuhlthau, C. (2014) Making the shift. Knowledge Quest. 43(2) 8-17
Patterson, E. (2018) Forum 5.4_1 Retrieved from https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/discussionboard/do/message?action=list_messages&course_id=_34577_1&conf_id=_60958_1&forum_id=_117467_1&message_id=_1791451_1&nav=discussion_board_entry&nav=discussion_board_entry&thread_id=null
University of Kentucky, (2017) The I-Learn model: Introduction. Retrieved from http://libguides.uky.edu/ilearn