Category: ETL401

Information Literacy and my IL role

noniharrison on

There is a need for a consistent approach to information literacy across the school and the TL is in an ideal position to assist and collaborate in the development and implementation of such a model. As much of the research suggests (Langford, 1998; Bruce, Edwards, & Lupton, 2007), when implementing an appropriate IL model, context and purpose must be taken into consideration. I agree with Lupton (2004) in that IL is an approach to learning. I believe IL to be the catalyst for deep and meaningful learning. When seeking and using information, IL assists in the process and in developing understanding of the material. The six frames seem to be suitable for different contexts of information learning; depending on the needs of the learner. For example, the Competency Frame takes on a behaviourist approach, whereby a set of competencies are taught at a particular time in response to a particular need. In Forum 5.2_2, Watterson (2017) highlights in her experience in primary education, these students need a skills-based approach to master basic IL skills before moving onto higher order skills in later years.

The Frame that sits most comfortably with me is the Learning to Learn Frame, as it is constructivist in nature and an approach that I believe is most useful and relevant to enhancing student engagement and learning. However, as mentioned earlier, all frames have their use and place in IL, so I also find the Relational Frame very interesting as a way of bringing together different approaches; content and experiences. Ultimately, it makes the most sense to make use of different frames to meet different needs. I thought this section of Bruce, Edwards and Lupton’s (2007) reading was really poignant: “Being encouraged to experience information literacy in a range of increasingly complex ways will mean that students have a broader repertoire upon which to draw with each situation where they are learning through finding and using information” (p. 54).

Bruce, Edwards and Lupton (2007) also identify the need to be explicit in our IL instruction and not assume that students know how to write an argument or find relevant information; therefore, we must explicitly teach the task words as part of IL instruction. So that students can achieve, we need to set them up for success by being explicit in our expectations. As IL specialists, we also need to address a range of different skills needed to be IL; including assessing the validity of sources. Bruce, Edwards and Lupton (2007) suggest there is a need to go beyond a web evaluation checklist, to highlight the level of writing or sophistication of sources (p. 53). There is a need for students to make use of a variety of reliable sources; therefore, there is a need for students to be able to assess the written quality of sources. Student evaluation of sources should include the “surface signs of authority” and the “ideas, opinions and perspectives apparent in the source and the quality, style and tone of the writing” (Bruce, Edwards & Lupton, 2007, p. 53). In my IL role, I could embed these different frames into an IL process for my students and into learning experiences, so that students can experience the process firsthand. I will need to work closely with my colleagues to develop an IL model that provides authentic contexts, relevant applications and/or issues, ongoing assessment, innovative learning experiences, and embedded information literacy skills (Abilock, 2017).

 

References

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

Bruce, C., Edwards, C., & Lupton, M. (2007). Six frames for information literacy education. In S. Andretta (Ed.). Change and challenge: Information literacy for the 21st century. Blackwood, SA: Auslib Press. eBook, CSU Library Reserve.

Langford, L. (1998). Information literacy: A clarification. School Libraries Worldwide, 4(1), 59-72. Retrieved from http://www.fno.org/oct98/clarify.html

Lupton, M. (2004). The learning connection: Information literacy and the student experience. Adelaide: Auslib Press.

Watterson, S. (2017, April 28). Forum 5.2_2 Information literacy [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/discussionboard/do/message?action=list_messages&forum_id=_84785_1&nav=discussion_board_entry&conf_id=_42098_1&course_id=_23912_1&message_id=_1117050_1#msg__1117050_1Id

 

[Reflection: Module 5.2]

What does it mean to be literate in the 21st century?

noniharrison on
New Literacies Word Cloud
New Literacies Word Cloud.

Being literate in the 21st century involves a wide range of skills in a wide range of contexts. Literacy encompasses the ability to participate fully in a range of situations including social and digital realms. It has transformed from the basic skills and understanding of reading and writing, to a tool, which is a means to participate in the technological society of the 21st century (Tompkins, Campbell, Green & Smith, 2015, p. 3). New literacies must respond to changes in the information landscape; therefore, literacy and technology can be seen to be interlinked in many ways. Tompkins, Campbell, Green and Smith (2015) posit technology has, and will continue to, transform literacy instruction. New literacies provide “sophisticated technological ways to read and write multimodal texts incorporating words, images and sounds – that provide opportunities for students to create innovative spaces for making meaning, exploring their worlds and voicing their lives” (Tompkins, Campbell, Green & Smith, 2015, p. 3). To be literate in the 21st century, Tompkins, Campbell, Green and Smith (2015) suggest students must become “proficient in new ways of accessing, comprehending and communicating information” (p. 8). Students must have a litany of skills to draw upon when necessary. These skills align with the traditional information literacy skills; however, students are required to use these in more dynamic and adaptable ways. Leu, Kinzer, Coiro and Cammack (2004) suggest that these “new literacies change regularly as technology opens new possibilities for communication and information” (p. 1). Therefore, with changes in social communication and new forms of media, literacy skills must also adapt. Sweeny (2010) supports this as she states “the current information and communication technologies (ICTs) are fundamentally changing the ways in which youth today read, write and communicate” (p. 121). The key to navigating the new world of literacies are the skills of searching for and locating useful information. Students also need new reading comprehension skills to support the retrieval of valid and meaningful information (Henry, 2006). Henry (2006) states “as new technologies increasingly become a part of classroom lessons, teachers are discovering that many students do not possess the new literacy skills required to successfully read and write with the many new technologies that regularly appear in today’s world” (p. 615). Henry (2006) also suggests a significant barrier to locating relevant information is the inability to successfully navigate search results on the Internet because a particular set of reading comprehension skills are required when using the Internet (p. 615). Students require skills in identifying important questions, locating information, critically evaluating information, synthesising information and communicating answers (Henry, 2006, p. 616). Being literate in the 21st century involves a multitude of skills concerning social, environmental, digital, and traditional literacies and will continue to evolve in response to our information needs.

 

References

Henry, L. A. (2006). Searching for an answer: The critical role of new literacies while reading on the internet. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 614-627. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au

Leu, Jr., D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In N. J. Unrau & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.) (pp. 1570-1613). Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/

Sweeny, S. M. (2010). Writing for the instant messaging and text messaging generation: Using new literacies to support writing instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(2), 121-130. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au

Tompkins, G., Campbell, R., Green, D., & Smith, C. (2015). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.au

 

[Reflection]

Information literacy transfer

noniharrison on

Herring (2011) found that a small minority of students identified as non-transferrers, in that they did not transfer knowledge or skills from one subject to another (p. 13). The majority of students believed in transfer in principle but were reluctant to transfer without the guidance and/or encouragement of teachers (Herring, 2011, p. 13). I have definitely experienced this in my teaching as a classroom teacher and as a teacher librarian. My students often do not clearly (or vocally) transfer their skills and knowledge from one subject to another. When I’m teaching, I explicitly make those connections for my students and ask them to tap into their prior knowledge and what they are studying or skills they are using in other subject areas. Herring (2011) also noted that teachers and teacher librarians are often found expecting that transfer just happens or is inevitable; however, this is not the case. As with most effective teaching, these strategies must be explicitly taught and practiced. I think transfer can be supported and encouraged by ensuring consistent literacy language and protocols are used school-wide. There needs to be a common approach and common terminology across all departments and with all teachers, so that students may clearly see the similarities and connections. Students should also be explicitly encouraged to transfer through best teaching practice, which highlights when skills or knowledge intersect between areas. By the sounds of it, most of us agree that consistent language and a common approach to transfer is a practical way of encouraging students to transfer information literacy skills and practices from one subject to another.

 

Reference

Herring, J. E. (2011).  Year 7 students, information literacy, and transfer: a grounded theory. School Library Research, 14, 1-31. Retrieved from http://bilby.unilinc.edu.au/

[Forum Reflection: Module 5.4_2]

Reflection: Opportunities for collaboration

noniharrison on

I have recently come across Eschler’s (2016) study of the collaboration behaviours of Finnish teachers – I found it was a great read. Eschler’s (2016) findings support the ascertain that the quality and effectiveness of Finnish teachers has greatly contributed to Finland’s educational success (p. 14). Ultimately, he found that Finnish teachers have two common principles that have contributed to their success; collaboration and autonomy. Regarding collaboration, Finnish teachers demonstrate three collaboration behaviours; sharing information and knowledge, planning, and problem-solving (Eschler, 2016). Out of his study, 95% of teachers indicated that they engaged in all three of these behaviours and teachers believed these to be interconnected (Eschler, 2016). His conclusions indicate that teachers engage in both formal and informal collaboration structures and collaborate in a variety of ways for different purposes. Teachers are also not confined to collaboration just within their departments. Effective collaboration occurs across the school and with and between most teachers.

Many other articles have also posited the importance of student and teacher autonomy in enhancing outcomes and education systems.

The Guardian: How Finnish schools shine

Forbes: Finland offers lessons for building student, teacher autonomy

 

So, my thoughts on collaboration:

What possibilities could arise for collaboration between teachers and teacher librarian?

  • The need for PD and shared learning to stay abreast of new pedagogical approaches and/or technology.
  • Planning and reflecting on programs.
  • Setting short and long-term goals for departments and wider school community.
  • Organising school events e.g. Literature Festival and/or book fare.
  • Organising guest speakers and other events.

In what ways could I begin to develop collaboration with teachers in my school?

  • Work with teachers to develop inquiry units of work.
  • Work with teachers to develop teaching and assessment material; including, Assignment Help Pages, source sheets, collaborative group work activities.
  • Offer PD opportunities for teachers.
  • Work with Learning Enrichment teachers to develop strategies that assist student learning; including digital support such as, text-to-speech software and Learning Tools in OneNote.

 

Reference

Eschler, B. H. (2016). Finnish teacher collaboration: The behaviors, learning, and formality of teacher collaboration. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au

Reflection: Pedagogical Initiatives

noniharrison on
Critical Thinking Community MCEETYA four-year plan 2009 – 2012

Provides resources that link critical thinking strategies with curriculum.

Great practical strategies for enhancing teaching practice; therefore, learning experiences. I will be using this and referring back regularly. They are great reminders of effective teaching practice.

Also, the website provides a glossary of critical thinking terms, which will be very helpful for me as a teacher when planning and developing tasks and for students, so they can better understand the expectations of a task.

 

E.g.

Ensure students are actively engaged by employing these strategies when asking students to contribute their ideas:

1.     Summarise or put into their own words what the teacher or another student has said.

2.     Elaborate on what they have said.

3.     Relate the issue or content to their own knowledge and experience.

4.     Give examples to clarify or support what they have said.

5.     Make connections between related concepts.

6.     Restate the instructions or assignment in their own words.

7.     State the question at issue.

8.     Describe to what extent their point of view on the issue is different from or similar to the point of view of the instructor, other students, the author, etc.

9.     Take a few minutes to write down any of the above.

10.  Write down the most pressing question on their mind at this point. The instructor then uses the above tactics to help students reason through the questions.

11.  Discuss any of the above with a partner and then participate in a group discussion facilitated by the instructor.

The MCEETYA four-year plan outlines the strategies the Australian and state and territory governments will undertake to meet the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (2008).

This document really focuses on the development of the individual student. It provides holistic learning and development goals by linking back to the 2008 Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians.

This document helps to provide links to the Third Space of student’s learning, as it encourages stronger connections between learning institutions and students’ lives.

The document also provides recommendations to ensure quality teaching and leadership.

For each aspect MCEETYA outlines their role in the enhancement strategy.

 

E.g.

Agreed strategies and actions for supporting senior years of schooling and youth transitions:

·       providing stimulating and relevant experiences, excursions and school-community links for senior years’ students

·       ensuring all students have access to quality support, information and advice to facilitate access to further education, training, careers, and employment options

·       enabling more rural and remote young people to participate in higher education programs

 

References

Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2015). The Critical Thinking Community. Retrieved from http://www.scseec.edu.au/archive/Publications.aspx

MCEETYA. (2009). MCEETYA four-year plan, 2009-2012. Retrieved from http://www.scseec.edu.au/archive/Publications.aspx

The Complex Nature of Defining a Complex Concept

noniharrison on

Defining Literacy and Changing Literacy Needs.

Put simply, literacy is the ability to read, write, speak and understand in a variety of contexts and with a variety of modes. Literacy encompasses more than the basics of comprehension. It has evolved to include a complex array of skills needed to better understand the information world we live in. When Gee (1991) defines literacy, he first explores the concepts of discourse and the patterns of learning and acquisition. He posits that acquisition is a more powerful tool to understanding than learning, which can become a separate, compartmentalised process in a classroom (Gee, 1991, p. 5-6). This explanation resonates strongly with me, as I find distinct connections between this and the importance of information literacy models in schools. Rather than learning a model out of context, it is crucial that a model is demonstrated by the teaching team and that the model is a distinct part of the information seeking and use journey. Gee (1991) suggests that literacy is the “control of secondary uses of language” (p. 8). This implies that literacy occurs in the realms outside of basic oral skills, as it involves both written and oral language in a range of environments. Gee (2010) goes on to explain, “literacy is mastered through acquisition, not learning, that is, it requires exposure to models in natural, meaningful, and functional settings, and teaching is not liable to be very successful – it may even initially get in the way” (p. 8). This supports my earlier assertion that these concepts greatly relate to the importance of embedding information literacy models in schools. Warlick (2005) supports this perspective, as he proposes the redefining and integrating of literacy into schools assists teachers in planning effective curriculum and better equips students for their futures. Furthermore, Warlick (2005) posits if “information is changing, then our sense of what it means to be literate must also change” (para. 6). Cope and Kalantzis (2009), speak of a need for educators and learners to expand their repertoire to respond to the changing landscape of literacy. It seems that users may require a combination of new literacy skills and also an extension of the traditional literacy skills to respond to and work with new formats and modes of delivery. Kalantzis and Cope (2015) also suggest a need to respond to new hybrid literacies and multimodalities (p. 17). Accordingly, Armstrong and Warlick (2004) identify the challenge and importance of emphasising literacy skills that reflect the current information environment. Students still require fundamental literacy skills; however, they are much more involved than they once were due to the changing information landscape. Being literate has developed from the three R’s (reading, writing, arithmetic) to the 4 E’s (expose, employ, express, and ethics on the Internet). For example, students can no longer take validity and credibility for granted. Students must be critical information users and employ effective strategies to navigate and use information. Warlick (2005) is critical of current education trends such as a key focus on integrating technology into schools. Instead, Warlick stresses the importance of integrating contemporary literacies into education, so as to equip students with the skills needed to navigate all aspects of their information world. It can be seen that literacy is an ever-important concept to grapple and should be a focus for schools in developing their students’ capacities as 21st Century learners.

 

References

Armstrong, S., & Warlick, D. (2004). The new literacy: The 3Rs evolve into the 4Es. Technology & Learning, 25(2), 20-20,22,24,26,28. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au

Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2009). Multiliteracies: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An international journal 4(3), 164-195. doi: 10.1080/15544800903076044

Gee, J. P. (1991). What is literacy? In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting literacy: Culture and the discourse of the other (pp. 3-11). New York: Bergin & Garvey.

Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. (2015). Regimes of literacy. In M. Hamilton, R. Heydon, K. Hibbert & R. Stooke (Eds.), Negotiating spaces for literacy learning: Multimodality and governmentality (pp. 15-24). London, United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Academic.

Warlick, D. (2005, March/April). The new literacy. Administrator Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=263&print=1

 

[Forum Reflection: Module 5.1]

Standards for Teacher Librarians

noniharrison on

ATSIL Standards and Australian School Library Association (2015) Evidence guide for teacher librarians in the proficient career stage.

Ways in which I could use one of the Evidence guides:

Use the standards as a guide to:

  • Better engage with students and staff
  • Develop programs or strengthen existing programs and/or procedures to enhance teaching and learning experiences
  • Increase accessibility of information for all students and their needs
  • Engage in PD opportunities
  • Develop my annual professional plans and ensure they align to the standards
  • Develop units of work and lessons
  • Develop policy relating to information retrieval and use
  • Engage and collaborate with the school community and other curriculum areas
  • Be a visible and valuable entity within the school community

As Karen Bonanno stated in her keynote address, these standards can be used develop a five-finger plan to success (CSU-SIS Learning Centre, 2011). Ultimately, TLs need to ensure their programs and services are relevant and in alignment with the necessary standards. These strategies will help to assist in promoting the library and TLs and to ensure TLs are meeting the same standards as required by all teachers nationwide.

 

Reference

CSU-SIS Learning Centre (Poster). (2011, October 23). ASLA 2011. Karen Bonanno, keynote speaker: A profession at the tipping point: Time to change the game plan [Video file]. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/31003940

 

[Forum Reflection: Module 3.1]

Reflection: Are school librarians an endangered species?

noniharrison on

New York Public Library. (2008). Work with schools, teachers’ reference room: a teacher find… [Photograph]. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/32951986@N05/3110130720/
After viewing Karen Bonanno’s keynote address, the take home message I received is that school librarians are endangered if you allow them to be (CSU-SIS Learning Centre, 2011). Bonanno spoke of the need to upskill and the need to use opportunities and take advantage of initiatives in the education system. Rather than seeing change as a threat, we (as TLs) must interpret the information (curriculum documents, government policy and findings) to find connections with our role and the services we can offer and see these opportunities as the potential for growth and to be visible and valuable members of the school community.

 

Reference

CSU-SIS Learning Centre (Poster). (2011, October 23). ASLA 2011. Karen Bonanno, keynote speaker: A profession at the tipping point: Time to change the game plan [Video file]. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/31003940

 

Reflection: You Can’t Hack a Paperback

noniharrison on

I stumbled across this clip from The Gruen Transfer’s The Pitch segment while I was reading about digital texts and the reliability of online sources. It would be a great clip to show student’s about reliability of sources and perhaps a good segway into discussion about Wikipedia.

Reference

The Gruen Transfer (Creator). GruenHQ (Poster). (2013, August 8). The Pitch: Paper books (you can’t hack a paperback: protect history) [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oktfUnqaVbA&list=PLOTfjwMQy3l9bFokGV3mvsa3C2h7SitBZ&index=11