Tag: literacy

ETL401 AT3 Part C – Blog Post Reflection

Monica CoddingtonLeave a comment

Provide a critical reflection of how your understanding of information literacy (IL), IL models and the teacher librarian’s (TL’s) role in inquiry learning has expanded through this subject. Refer to previous blog posts and other commentary from the subject forums to support your emerging understanding in the reflection. 

Developing an understanding of IL was challenging for me throughout ETL401. My early post in ‘2.1 Thinking About Information’ (Coddington, 2020a) revealed a deepening, yet shallow, understanding of IL, informed, I believe, by my English teaching background. However, engagement with course content (Module 5, Interact2) revealed that IL and multi-literacies as literacy to understand (Coddington, 2020b), are far more complex than I had imagined, consisting of processes, skills and literacies that should inform TL pedagogical (Kalantiz & Cope, 2015). However, I lacked knowledge on how to effectively teach it. As the collaborative teaching of IL in inquiry learning (I.L) units may be considered to be integral to the TL’s role (the potential compulsory nature of which I see both sides of (Coddington, 2020d)), this has implications for my role. A deeper understanding is required on how to fulfil it.

Fitzgerald & Garrison’s research (2017) on the Guided Inquiry Process Design (GID) as an IL model prompted me to question the long-term benefits of GID as students move into the workforce and how a TL might promote and implement models on a school-wide basis. I subsequently reflected on associated issues such as concerns about accountability, content coverage and workload, and how these might impact the implementation of a common IL model (Coddington, 2020c), showcasing the development and significance of such understandings. However, unlike others, I hadn’t considered the impact of executive staff (who might insist – or not – on collaboration) and reluctance to collaborate with new staff on implementation (Coddington, 2020d; Garrison & FitzGerald, 2019). As a new TL at a new school, this certainly has significance. Garrison & FitzGerald’s research-based guidance on how to overcome such issues to integrate IL through I.L across the curriculum (work with executive staff to plan, collaborate on an individual basis and host professional learning) are steps that I endeavour to take so that students are not disadvantaged.

However, more research on IL models is required before this can occur as I had previously not encountered IL models, and as a result of my brief readings of I.L, I didn’t think it was compatible with my subjects, and had not considered how it manifested across the curriculum. Bonanno’s work deepened my understanding of the latter and the necessity of an integrated approach to IL (Coddington, 2020e). Whilst I, like many others in the discussion thread 5.4a: Information Literacy, wondered where it fit in the English curriculum, it is clear I had a gap in knowledge that other’s (Moon, 2020) did not. Sluiter (2017) provided insights into potential application through inquiry literature circles, however my background did not facilitate consideration of inquiry mapping and IL models from other perspectives, such as Art and PDHPE. As a TL, I will need to have a broader understanding of the various curricula’s if I am to engage in the worthwhile task of mapping IL and I.L in all subjects for a wholistic approach. Bonanno and Lupton’s work provide models for how this can be achieved, and will need to be used as scaffolds for further research and I.L mapping and planning.

To supplement this, research into IL models was required, and broadened my understanding of the challenges TLs face in collaboration and IL models. Module 5: Information Literacy content (CSU, 2020; Kuhlthau et al., 2020; The Big6 etc.) gave me a shallow understanding, but in light of the discussions around the potential requirement of collaboration between TLs and teachers, and the inherent challenges (Coddington, 2020f), I found myself preferencing GID for its facilitation of collaboration between students and the popularity of it in Australia (Coddington, 2020g; Garrison & FitzGerald, 2020; Kuhlthau et al., 2012; Maniotes, 2017). However, if Principals expect TLs to create inquiry units collaboratively (Coddington, 2020d), then PLUS offers simplicity (CSU, 2020). However, GID and I-LEARN offer transferability (Garrison & FitzGerald, 2019; Greenwell, 2016), and Big6 ICT skill development (Eisenberg, 2003). Is the focus on an ease of full-scale implementation, which I consider difficult (Coddington, 2020e), or progressive implementation for long-term skill development and transfer? How does a central school TL decide?

Following Bonanno and Lupton’s models to track I.L across all subjects would be helpful to determine what skills are required, which would assist me in making a final decision on which model to implement in my role as collaborator in I.L. for K-12. Following this model would allow me to have deeper understandings of IL models and curriculum subjects, and would therefore assist me in facing the issues associated with this role (potential expectations of collaboration (Coddington, 2020d), barriers to collaboration (Coddington, 2020f), etc.) – a more complex role than I originally thought (Coddington, 2020h; Coddington, 2020i).

Word count: 770

Reference List

Bonanno, K. (2014). F-10 inquiry skills scope and sequence, and F-10 core skills and tools. Eduwebinar. https://eduwebinar.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/curriculum_mapping_scope_sequence_skills_tools.pdf

Charles Sturt University (CSU). (2020). Outline of the PLUS Model. James Herring’s PLUS Model: Purpose Location Use Self-Evaluation. https://farrer.csu.edu.au/PLUS/

Coddington, M. (2020a, March 11). 2.1 Thinking About Information. Discussion forum post [ETL401 Interact2].

Coddington, M. [monica.coddington1] (2020b, May 18). Dissecting Literacy. The Learning of a Teacher Librarian in Training. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/teacherlibrarianintraining/2020/05/18/dissecting-literacy/  

Coddington, M. (2020c, May 4). 4.1b: Inquiry Learning. Discussion forum post [ETL401 Interact2].

Coddington, M. (2020d, May 18). 4.3: The TL and Curriculum. Discussion forum post [ETL401 Interact2].

Coddington, M. (2020e, May 7). 5.3a: Information Literacy Model. Discussion forum post [ETL401 Interact 2].

Coddington, M. [monica.coddington1] (2020f, May 21). Challenges in the TL’s Role. The Learning of a Teacher Librarian in Training. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/teacherlibrarianintraining/2020/05/21/challenges-in-the-tls-role/

Coddington, M. [monica.coddington1] (2020g, May 21). Information Literacy and Inquiry Learning. The Learning of a Teacher Librarian in Training. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/teacherlibrarianintraining/2020/05/21/information-literacy-and-inquiry-learning/

Coddington, M. (2020h, March 15). ETL401 AT1 Part B – Experience-Informed Reflections on the TL Role. The Learning of a Teacher Librarian in Training. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/teacherlibrarianintraining/2020/03/15/etl401-at1-part-b-experience-informed-reflections-on-the-tl-role/

Coddington, M. [monica.coddington1] (2020i, May 1). Who comes first – the teacher or the librarian? The Learning of a Teacher Librarian in Training. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/teacherlibrarianintraining/2020/05/01/who-comes-first-the-teacher-or-the-librarian/

Eisenberg, M. (2003). Implementing Information Skills: Lessons Learned from the Big6 Approach to Information Problem-Solving. School Libraries in Canada, 22(4), 20-23. URL.

Fitzgerald, L. & Garrison, K. (2017). ‘It Trains Your Brain’: Student Reflections on Using the Guided Inquiry Design Process. Synergy, 15(2). https://search-informit-com-au.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/fullText;dn=217217;res=AEIPT

Garrison, K., & FitzGerald, L. (2019). “One interested teacher at a time”: Australian Teacher Librarian Perspectives on Collaboration and Inquiry. International Association of School Librarianship. 1-10. https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/2343152998?fbclid=IwAR01RLBXOmJJDjO7XLEM2fGguCT4_gnHeKDpo8DNPGIDaTpuYVk6nEZkwdE&rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo

Greenwell, S. (2016). Using the I-LEARN model for information literacy instruction. Journal of Information Literacy, 10(1), 67-85. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/JIL/article/view/PRA-V10-I1-4/2328

Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. (2015). Multiliteracies: Expanding the scope of literacy pedagogy. New Learning Online. https://newlearningonline.com/multiliteracies

Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K. & Caspari, A. K. (2020). Guided Inquiry Design. http://wp.comminfo.rutgers.edu/ckuhlthau/guided-inquiry-design/

Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K. & Caspari, A. K. (2012). Guided Inquiry Design: A Framework for Inquiry in Your School. ABC-CLIO, LLC.

Lupton, M. (2012). Inquiry Skills in the Australian Curriculum. Access, 26(2), 12-18. URL

Maniotes, L. K. (2017). Guided Inquiry Design Framework. In L. Maniotes (Ed.), Guided Inquiry Design in Action: High School (1st Ed., 5-12). Libraries Unlimited.

Moon, K. (2020, May 7). 5.4a: Information Literacy. Discussion forum post [ETL401 Interact2].

Sluiter, K. (2017). From Literature Circles to Inquiry Circles. The Educators Room. https://theeducatorsroom.com/lit-circles-inquiry-circles/

The Big6 (2018). The BIG6: Information and Technology Skills for Student Success. The Big6. https://thebig6.org/

 

 

 

 

Dissecting Literacy

Monica CoddingtonLeave a comment

“Literacy has been dissected and put on display in glass cabinets in the rooms of whichever discipline has taken a knife to it since its conception.”

Definitions for literacy abound in the multitudes in textbooks across disciplines and websites throughout the infosphere. The term, to put it bluntly, has been dissected and put on display in glass cabinets in the rooms of whichever discipline has taken a knife to it since its conception. The result is not a deeper understanding of the concept – instead, this dissection has only served to make it smaller, and smaller, and smaller, removing one definition from the next and establishing one “literacy” as separate from another. There is what is called the “traditional” literacies – the ability to read and write – and a whole host of niche literacies branching off it. There is visual, oral and aural literacy, critical, cultural and workplace literacy, and now with the development of the infosphere and the digital world, even sub-branches of ICT, media, digital and information literacies.

My English teaching background tends to shudder in horror at this dismantling of a concept that, really, can be summed up and applied so simply across a range of disciplines:

to understand.

Evidently, the concept of literacy is far more complicated that can be communicated in two words – I’ve no misconceptions about its complex nature, rest assured. But I feel no matter which direction you take when you look at it whether as a concept, process or skill – for all three is certainly is – the dissecting of literacy into smaller and smaller niche literacies is counterproductive, to say the least.

To be able to read is to comprehend – to understand. To be able to write is to understand how to communicate using the written word. To be visually literate is to understand how meaning is created and conveyed through images, and to communicate with them. To be orally literate is to understand how to communicate using the spoken word. To be aurally literature is to understand the spoken word. To be critically literate is to understand how to critique what we see, hear and read – and know why we must do so. To be culturally literate is to understand how cultures operate on macro and micro levels, to understand what cultures consist of – and therefore how to navigate them. To be workplace literate is to understand how to successfully enter the workforce, and navigate it (and learn how to do so with specific skills) once you get there. To be ICT, media and digitally literate is to understand how they work, to understand how to access them, to understand how to navigate them, and to understand how to use them.

And to be information literate is to understand information. To understand how to find it, and where to find it. To understand how to assess it, and why we need to do so. To understand what to do once we find it, and what to do with it once we’ve got it. To understand what to do if we can’t find it, and must rethink how to do so.

In this sense, then, literacy in all its complexity as a concept, a process and a skill can indeed be defined most succinctly in two words:

to understand.

Evidently what one tags on the end of this “to understand” will be discipline-specific, but to understand is an inherent feature of literacy as a concept, a process and a skill. Literacy cannot therefore be “new”, but is rather a concept, process and skill that has been developed over time. As the means of communication have changed, the requirements of our understandings have changed too. As a result, what students are required to know and be able to do – what skills they must understand how to use, what processes they must understand how to engage in – have changed over time.

This is what is central to the concept of information literacy, and the diverse perspectives presented in Module 5 reflect the changing demands on what it means “to understand”, and indeed what it entails. As an information specialist, then, these discussions and the multitude of definitions and dissected sub-definitions will guide me in my planning as information literacy and inquiry learning specialist. To know what students need to know, from processes to skills, I need to understand the requirements of what the English curriculum has so aptly termed this plethora of literacies: multi-literacies.

 

“A wholistic (or multi-literacies) approach to information literacy is imperative”

 

The technologies will continue to change, and so the ways of “understanding” will continue to morph with them, but to separate literacies into separate entities suggest a separate approach to each. This can lead only to confusion and a surface-level understanding of each. A wholistic (or a multi-literacies) approach to information literacy is imperative, just as an awareness of how these changes will impact how students will navigate the world is therefore crucial to teaching the processes and skills they will require to understand, and therefore access and navigate it. Staying on top of educational developments, research and pedagogy has never been (or seemed) so important.