Participatory Digital Spaces

“If librarians are teaching students complex, higher-level concepts, shouldn’t course guides reflect this shift?”

(Stone, Lowe and Maxson, 2018, p. 281)

The construction of research guides are a key part of the teacher librarian’s (TL) role and more complex than I imagined.  As a 21^st century librarian, I have learnt that limitless technology options allow for the ability to select “best fit” tools to create learning objects. Furthermore, by creating scaffolds, providing context and embedding information literacy (IL), students’ 21^st century learner skills are developed. These include collaboration, independent learning and an ability to critically engage with information (Rocky View Schools, 2020).

Reflecting on my blog post learning objects, I explored the incorporation of IL within learning objects and how this enabled students to become self-directed learners. This idea still resonates, but I now realise it is more complex. Fundamental to the development of students’ self-sufficiency is my knowledge of my students and then tailoring learning objects in a level-specific and accessible way. It involves operating out of my comfort zone to find new and innovative ways for students to engage with technology. I am reminded of discussions in Module 5.2: Creating Resources, which highlighted the importance of collaboration between teachers. I need to hone my own questioning skills to obtain specific information on each student group before the construction of new guides.

Belland, Weiss and Ju Kim (2020, p. 374) discuss the importance of structuring students’ critical thinking and the collaborative process. I applied these ideas by adding online collaboration tools such as Padlet and Coggle for brainstorming, note taking and mind mapping. These tools enable transparent thinking in a collaborative environment, allowing students to learn from their peers. I am reminded of towards an expansive view of information literacy where I examined social interaction and collaboration as key motivators for my students. Choosing online tools that suit the student culture supports engagement with learning objects.

In the process of creating this guide, I drew on the ideas of Lee and Lowe (2018, pp. 207-11). I utilised technology by incorporating interactive elements to encourage students to be active participants, added resource descriptions and signposted the research process. This positively contributed to student outcomes by demonstrating to students how to apply the IL model as well as providing the tools to engage with the material in a meaningful way. By presenting the purpose of an activity, the link to the learning outcomes became explicit.

I learnt how technology can be utilised to gauge reading levels of the curated resources, to tailor to a range of comprehension levels. In Module 2: Readability, the discussion centred on the excitement of the discovery of such a resource. I reflected that I had been giving students written materials that were beyond their reading levels for years! The next step was to signpost these levels. I did this by learning how to create icons. I need to constantly develop my skillset to meet the needs of my learners.

Belland, Weiss and Ju Kim (2020) wrote about the limitation of computer-based scaffolding, seeing it as “static rather than dynamically adjusting to student needs” (p.375). I disagree with this statement because I believe that the right platform, in the right hands does dynamically adjust. In this way, the research guide becomes a true participatory environment, where the tools are embedded for students to activity engage with their own learning in partnership with a responsive and daring teacher librarian.  

References:

Alamettälä, T., & Sormunen, E. (2021). Learning online research skills in lower secondary school: long-term intervention effects, skill profiles and background factors. Information and Learning Sciences, 122(1/2), 68-81. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-03-2020-0058

Belland, B., Weiss, M., & and Nam Ju, K. (2020). High school students’ agentic responses to modelling during problem-based learning. The Journal of educational research. 113(5), 374-383.

Lee, Y and Lowe, S. (2018). Building positive experiences through pedagogical research guide design. Journal of web librarianship, 12(4), 205-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2018.1499453

Rocky View Schools. (2020). Portrait of a 21st century learner [Image]. https://www.rockyview.ab.ca/21stC/assets/image-folder/21st-C-Portrait.png/view

Stone, S., Lowe, S., & Maxson, B. (2018). Does course guide design impact student learning? College & undergraduate libraries, 25(3), 280-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2018.1482808