Category: ETL401

 

• How might the TL help the school move towards integrated information literacy instruction?
• What challenges lie in the way of such instruction?
• How teacher librarians and teachers might encourage students to transfer information literacy skills and practices from one subject to another?

 

1) If the TL wants to move the direction of the school to use IL, I think the TL will need to get the leadership team on board first. If the leadership team doesn’t support your initiative, it will more than likely fail before it takes off. Once you have their support, professional learning should be on the agenda. In my school context, most of our senior staff members are not familiar with IL or distort it in a quasi-comprehension task where teachers hand out informative worksheets with attached questions. As a result students take no ownership of the process. This might require the TL to model lessons to train staff to begin with, then ideally progress to a collaborative approach.

 

2) Challenges often depend on the receptiveness of the teacher, leadership team and even the students themselves who are not used to taking control of their learning and enjoy being “spoon fed.” It can also be quite confronting and frustrating for students who are not used to the openess of IL and just want “the right answer” from one source of information.

 

3) TLs can help facilitate the transfer of skills by collaborating with classroom teachers and having an input into their curriculum to reinforce the skills you have taught.

Part C: Reflective practice (739 words)

In this unit we explored the process of Information Literacy (IL). Though perceived as an umbrella term, it is defined by its user’s context and purpose. It can be viewed under the lens of a behaviourist approach which looks at the observable behaviours and the explicit learning of information skills (White, 2006). In this lens, TLs  must explicitly teach a range of strategies and information skills to meet a specific need.

 

Another lens to IL is the sociocultural approach. In using this approach the TL views IL as a social endeavour bound to a context/activity (Wang, 2011). Therefore, the TL facilitates opportunities for students to communicate and collaborate on their learning. This is further enhanced with phenomenography practices of metacognition and applying digital literacy.

 

However, irrespective of which lens the TL operates on, the success of IL heavily depends on the participants’ literacy skills particularly in comprehending information (Laretive, 2019). This has huge implications for TL who, like myself, work in schools with high language barriers and therefore support from the school, especially the TL,  is essential when implementing this process. This creates an issue on whether a strong foundation of literacy needs to be evident before commencing IL or, through modification of resources and utilisation of an IL model with high degrees of scaffolding would be sufficient to guide students through the information literacy process. In the discussion forum, I raised the issue of spoon feeding the IL process and teachers who are in similar backgrounds agree that the line of helping and giving autonomy is difficult to judge and would vary depending on the student and school context. Flick and Lederman (2004) further validate these inferences stating that people who don’t have the necessary pre-knowledge, lack the discipline to engage in IL. 

 

ETL401 also delved into various IL models. These models assist TL’s and students to deconstruct an inquiry task into manageable interrelated components. Models such as Herring’s Plus Model and Big 6 offer flexibility for students to “visit” and “revisit” processes, as they progress through the inquiry task. However, Kuhlthau (2015) offers more linear models including The Information Search Process and Guided Inquiry Design. These models I personally found to be more practical in a primary school setting because of the extensive amount of scaffolds and focus on metacognition, particularly how participants feel during the process (Kuhlthau, 2015). Given that my current school has very limited experience with IL and inquiry, I believe that the more structured and linear GID model would serve my primary school community better. 

In the discussion post, I asked the network about Guided Inquiry on how it fundamentally values the process over the product and the importance of reflection. The community agreed and further raised the issue of how TL’s (with the limited time they have with a class) need to create engaging metacognitive experiences so students value the GI process as much as the end result. In my blog, I noted that the correlation between engagement and student achievement was very high as cited by one of the recommended readings of the unit Skinner, E.A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993).

 

So how does the role of the TL fit into this? Is it the TL or classroom teacher who is driving the unit?

 

Ultimately, this depends on the school context and culture. If the main role of library lessons is to give RFF to classroom teachers, then opportunities for collaboration and opportunities to build collective teacher efficacy could be greatly diminished. This is where school leadership is critical. In a discussion post, I asked the community about the value of getting the school leadership on board when promoting the library’s role in IL as a collaborative exercise. Respondents from both primary and secondary contexts agree that without the leadership’s support, much of the TL’s potential in covering the embedded information skills of the curriculum (including general capabilities) is squandered. 

 

In my current school, we don’t have a TL because of a misguided view that TL’s are glorified book scanners, a role that an aide can do. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident (Matthews, 2016), with many Catholic systemic schools in the Sydney region also redefining the role of the TL to administrative tasks. This is why the role of the TL needs to encompass advocacy and professional development on how the TL, when working collaboratively with the classroom teacher, can add value to student learning for all staff. 

 

 Part C – References

Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2004). Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science: Implications for teaching, learning and teacher education. Norwell, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishing.

Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K., & Caspari, A. K. (2015). Guided Inquiry: Learning in the 21st Century, 2nd Edition. Libraries Unlimited. 

Matthews, K. (2016, July 21) So Where Have All The Teacher Librarians Gone? Kidspot https://www.kidspot.com.au/school/primary/real-life/so-where-have-all-our-school-teacher-librarians-gone/news-story/c7a6f47b81fffc110df387ed1d26d6ac

 

Laretive, J. (2019) Information Literacy, Young Learners and the Role of the Teacher Librarian, Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 68:3, 225-235, DOI: 10.1080/24750158.2019.1649795

Wang, L. (2011). Sociocultural Learning Theories and Information Literacy Teaching Activities in Higher Education. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 47(2), 149-158. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/rusq.47n2.149

 

Wang, L. (2011). An information literacy integration model and its application in higher education. Reference Services Review.

White, M.D. (2006). [Review of the book Theories of Information Behavior]. portal: Libraries and the Academy 6(2), 236-238. doi:10.1353/pla.2006.0031

 

 

The content of this week focused on the different models of Inquiry Learning. Based on constructivism, Inquiry learning is about more than the “product” but the process and skills that students use and develop as they complete their task. One advantage that came from the readings provided this week that stood out was that in using IL students have greater autonomy in their learning and therefore are more intrinsically engaging for them. Further reading by Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993) validates this and shows a direct correlation between engagement and student achievement. 

 

This week we were presented with a range of different models of Inquiry Learning. Each model has clear stages that students are guided through by the teacher and teacher librarian. From my school’s context of having very low English speaking students and limited experiences in inquiry, I find that I am drawn to the Guided Inquiry Design model. It is backed by research and is learning centric rather than product driven. It takes into account student curiosity more so than the other models and has a strong focus on reflecting which is a vital skill our students need to develop.

 

An interesting counter argument against the use of Inquiry Learning I found was an interesting article by Flick & Lederman, 2004). Their research argues that:

 

The process of IBL can be particularly difficult for low achievers as they may be working from a limited pre-knowledge base and have a lack of self discipline. Students need to become active learners during IBL and students with a lack of self-discipline may struggle greatly. During IBL, the learning is student centered and the teacher works only as a facilitator, suggesting that students may stray  from the task at hand. 

 

Therefore, continuous monitoring and planning to meet the students so they can access and use the content is a consideration that both the teacher and teacher librarian need to take into account. 

 

References:

 

Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2004). Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science: Implications for 

    teaching, learning and teacher education. Norwell, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishing.

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993) Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of educational psychology, 85(4), 571.

 

The content of this week was very much based on the importance of managing time in the neverending onslaught of tasks teacher librarians face on a regular basis. From managing the physical and digital spaces to building your own capacity to use technology effectively, the TL role can be quite demanding. The readings suggest there is value in breaking up large tasks into small manageable ones, particularly when learning about technology and using scaffolds to maximise your time more effectively. One reading that stood out for me was the following:

 

Wilson, T. (2009-2016). Time management for teachers – essential tips if you want a life outside school.  Time Management Success. 

 

This article about balancing a finite amount of time with an almost infinite onslaught of work I found quite thought provoking and very true for most teachers and teacher librarians today. Wilson (2009-2016) conceptualises time for teachers into three zones:

• Zone 1 – Time that is spent in the school
• Zone 2 – Lesson Prep, assessments, marking etc.
• Zone 3 – Your time

 

However, the space between Zone 2 and 3 is time that teachers can use to their own discretion. Here, Wilson (2009-2016) suggests that teachers need to categorise their tasks based on their urgency. It is then suggested that teachers need to be comfortable with doing what needs to be done and moving less urgent items to a later date. Furthermore, Wilson (2009-2016) further suggests that teachers need to be comfortable with “near enough is good enough” for items that do not require perfectionism.

 

I found this quite pertinent to my own practice. Striving to have a perfect program, perfect evaluations, assessments, communications with parents, staff relationships, up to date pedagogical knowledge and books marked with feedback can take a huge toll on me especially when trying to balance this course on top of that mix. I find that my Zone 3 whittles away and the sensation of feeling overwhelmed becomes an everyday occurrence. I know my work colleagues would agree with me in saying that the amount of work intensification and expectations from all stakeholders is becoming a serious issue on teacher welfare. Striving for a work/life balance is going to be one of my future goals once I finish this course. Fingers crossed that it will happen.