How do you see yourself developing the knowledge and skills to address current and future information literacy and digital fluency needs?
What is the relevance and purpose of transliteracy in this overall discussion of digital citizenship and 21st Century teaching and learning?
I think the answer to the second question is relatively straight forward – students use a range of digital tools in their daily lives to explore, connect, and create, so it is fitting that our digital citizenship practices and 21st century teaching and learning experiences mirror this. However, while students may use a variety of tools in their everyday lives to create their own digital artefacts, Valenza (2010) highlights that they are not necessarily transliterate. Meaning, they may be able to use the tools but may not have the dispositions needed to exploit each tool and effectively create, organise, share and communicate for a particular purpose (Wheeler & Gerver, 2015). This use of transliteracy in schools explicitly connects to and activates the third space, which enhances the authenticity and meaningfulness of tasks.
In terms of information literacy and digital fluency needs, I see an ongoing need will be filtering. The ability to easily create and curate information has not necessarily eased information overload, or infowhelm, rather it has increased. Digital literacy can address this issue by upskilling users on effective filtering techniques. Even though it’s going on 11 years old, Clay Shirky’s key note on filter failure from 2008 is an interesting watch.
It is near impossible to keep up with the plethora of tools available. If anything, this highlights the necessity to be well-versed in filtering. We must be discerning in our choices so as not to overload or overwhelm ourselves. Each tool has a particular use and may be more or less useful depending on the context. Wheeler stresses that we should not adopt new technology then decide how it might be useful (IATED, 2015). The technology or tool should be identified in response to a problem; a way to solve a problem. This is something I need be mindful of when developing my knowledge and skills in these areas.
It would be helpful to identify particular uses, enablers and barriers to each tool and platform I am exploring, then curate a collection that would be most helpful to my college context and the needs of the college community. As suggested by O’Connell (2012), making use of my PLE and PLN to find and test tools are two avenues I have used and will continue to use to develop my knowledge and skills in addressing information literacy and digital fluency needs. Through Twitter and various blogs, I follow different organisations and individuals who work in the areas of technology, education and literacy, so I have a range of perspectives to choose from.
The ability to read and interpret information is a fundamental skill needed to participate fully in the world. These basic skills (although actually quite complex) will continue to be as important, if not more, than the past. The information-rich world is expanding; however, algorithms are filtering the information we see. So, people’s values and beliefs are consistently reinforced, while other perspectives are left out or buried on page 3 of Google search results – an equally ominous fate. In turn, this leads to confirmation bias, which can be detrimental to those who cannot critically evaluate what they are experiencing and reading.
Algorithms present users with a calculated selection of “relevant” information; however, it is clear that users must develop and employ the necessary skills to work within these algorithms. The top search results are not always the most useful. Searchers must not ignore the other titbits of information such as Google’s snippets displayed under each search result. While Google can change the snippet from the meta description of the webpage to their own algorithmically determined snippet (Silver Smith, 2013), it is still a useful port of call that many searchers skip over. This allows savvy searchers to preliminarily assess the relevance and worth of the search results – which are not always at the top of the page (Wineburg & McGrew, 2017). But algorithms are not the only cause of confirmation bias. Ashrafi-Amiri & Al-sader (2016) suggest searchers’ assumptive search queries based on fact retrieval and verification will characteristically retrieve more bias results than if the query were non-assumptive; that is, knowledge acquisition, comparative, analytical, and exploratory in nature. Information literacy instructors must be aware of this and consider this when developing instruction for students.
TLs must address the critical thinking skills required to work with and within algorithms that reinforce bias. Maynes (2015) identifies the role of information literacy instructors in explicitly teaching students about the forms of bias, ways to identify their own bias, and skills to mitigate the potential effects of their bias. This involves teaching the metacognitive skills students need to not only know the strategies to use but how, when and why to use them (Maynes, 2015). A combination of lateral and vertical reading is useful in all information evaluation situations. While many libraries utilise a CRAP (Currency, Reliability, Authority, Purpose/Point of View) test to step students through the information evaluation process, other steps can also be considered so students tune into their metacognition and identify their bias (Wineburg & McGrew, 2017). Allan (2017) suggests incorporating some form of personal reflection into the information literacy sessions offered to students. Students must not only be taught that confirmation bias exists, they must also be taught the skills to identify it in themselves and to deal with it when it occurs. One such strategy is to identify when a source of information elicits an emotional response from the reader – Does it make you happy? Sad? Reinforce? Challenge? Developing self-regulation triggers the reader to seek additional information and reflection to consider the opposite or alternate (Hirt & Markman, 1995; Lord, Lepper, & Preston, 1984; Mussweiler, Strack, & Pfeiffer, 2000). This requires information searchers to reflect on their reactions at each step and consider whether their evaluation of the usefulness or credibility of the source would be the same if it presented the opposing viewpoint. Deliberately considering the opposing viewpoint requires the searcher to consider their bias and the bias of others. This is a powerful strategy in unveiling subconscious or hidden bias. Allan (2017) posits adding an S (Self-examination or Self-awareness) to the beginning of the CRAP test would highlight the importance of identifying and recognising cognitive and confirmation bias.
SCRAP it: Source evaluation process.
The importance of slowing down the information evaluation process by thinking effortfully and deliberately (Kahneman, 2011) and evaluating laterally (Wineburg & McGrew, 2017) is central to 21st century information and digital literacy. Evaluating laterally requires searchers to seek and consider context and perspective, which means they must seek additional information. Slowing down does not simply mean taking longer to read the article and its parts – it means careful and deliberate consideration and slowing your judgement by first taking your bearings and exploring laterally. This may mean to first leave the site or visit the About Us section to find out more about the author or the organisation, before navigating back to the original source (Wineburg & McGrew, 2017). Thinking laterally can occur in multiple stages of the CRAP test, particularly when assessing the reliability and purpose/point of view present in the source. Searchers will need to explore other sites to learn more about the information. While searchers will not always slow down and employ lateral reading, it is important to know when to slow down. High stakes situations where the searcher may possess a strong bias already or where the information may have significant consequences for the searcher or others, or a highly contested issue or topic may require more deliberate reasoning to ensure the searcher is acquiring balanced, truthful information (Maynes, 2015). Considering the opposite is another practical strategy to employ in these situations.
It is clear that information evaluation and digital literacy skills need to evolve with changing demands and issues within the information landscape. Information literacy instructors must stay abreast of these changes and adapt evaluation strategies as needed. A start might be to model and incorporate lateral reading into existing strategies and follow Allan’s (2017) suggestion and put that S at the beginning of CRAP.
References
Allan, M. (2017). Information literacy and confirmation bias: You can lead a person to information, but can you make him think? Informed Librarian Online, 2017(5). Retrieved from https://asu-ir.tdl.org/handle/2346.1/30699
Ashrafi-Amiri, N. & Al-sader, J. (2016). Effects of confirmation bias on web search engine results and a differentiation [Thesis]. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/43564372.pdf
Hirt, E.R., & Markman, K.D. (1995). Multiple explanation: A consider-an-alternative strategy for debiasing judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1069– 1086.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux
Lord, C. G., Lepper, M. R., & Preston, E. (1984). Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social judgment. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 47(6), 1231-1243.
Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9),1142–1150.
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
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 journal4(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
