LAUNCHING “INFOLIT 2.0”?CONSIDERING WEB 2.0'S POTENTIAL TO SUPPORT CRITICAL THINKING AND HIGHER-LEVEL LEARNING IN INFORMATION LITERACY PRACTICE

Cameron Hoffman, University of LethbridgeSarah Polkinghorne, University of Alberta

WILU 2007May 17, 2007

Overview

Discourse Analysis Our Methodology Discourses & Patterns Emerging from the

Analysis Constructivism

Constructivism Defined Discovery Learning & Problem-based Learning

Practical Teaching Examples: Web 2.0 + Infolit

Questions and Discussion

Discourse Analysis Situating Inquiry

How is it that one particular statement appeared rather than another? (Foucault 27)

Discourse Analysis

is a tool.

It can help us investigate

questions about the real world,

which is reflected through

communications practices.

Discourse Analysis Definition

A particular area of language use that: Is associated with a concrete system or

institution Affects — and is affected by — individuals Reflects — and is affected by — social,

political, and cultural relationships Affects — and is a product of — language May dominate, but is rarely universal Is neither good nor bad Is constantly evolving

Discourse Analysis Methods

Asking What is the current nature of the

relationship between Web 2.0 and information literacy? What discourses are in play within this relationship?

Generating Terms Web 2.0 terms Information literacy terms

Discourse Analysis Methods

Searching and Reading LibLit, LISA, ERIC, INSPEC, CISA, ASP Thesaurus where available; keyword Project management: limiting inquiry to

formally published literature; time frame of 2005-present

81 results Observing

Themes, vocabularies, absences Excavating/Interrogating

Discourses

Discourse Analysis Discourses (Role of Web 2.0 in Libraries) Technology discourse

Web 2.0 positioned as a tool or technology: nothing more Where prevalent: computing science literature; less so in the

library literature

Marketing discourse Web 2.0 positioned as library service/advocacy tool/library

news/marketing tool, e.g. IM reference, podcast tours Where prevalent: the library literature we examined E.g., non-scholarly articles that are overviews or tech profiles

Learning discourse Web 2.0 positioned as a platform to facilitate and enhance

learning Where prevalent: in the education literature we read; less so

in the library literature

Discourse Analysis Discourses (Role of the Librarian)

Serving discourse Seen alongside marketing discourse: librarians positioned as

service providers This is the predominant discourse relating to the role and core

work of librarians within the literature we sampled Manifested in: anxiety, the ‘need to catch up’: We’ll fall

behind/become irrelevant if we don’t adopt Web 2.0! E.g. librarians can be better service providers, give users more

“value” through IM reference, library blogs

Teaching discourse Seen alongside learning discourse: librarians positioned as

teachers Where seen: mainly education literature; does exist, though less

widely seen, within the library literature E.g. Doug Achterman (school librarian): seeing ourselves as

guides in learning, including critical thinking skills

Discourse Analysis Discourses (Role of the Library User)

Customer discourse Users are positioned as customers, consumers of service Often seen alongside the marketing discourse and the serving

discourse Predominant discourse within the library literature we examined E.g. descriptions of millennials (skilled multitaskers, demand

instant info gratification, take path of least resistance)

Learner discourse Users are positioned as learners Most often seen alongside the teaching and learning discourses Discourse is manifested in the library literature, though it is

overshadowed by customer discourse E.g. descriptions of millennials (skilled collaborators,

communicators, reflectors, active agents in their education)

Constructivism

Constructing knowledge rather than receiving it

critical thinking

reasoningproblem-solving

(Driscoll, 2000; Fetsco & McClure, 2005; Marlowe & Page, 1998)

Learners ≠ passive receivers of information

activereflective

collaborative

Teachers = guides through the learning process

modeling

providing opportunities to think/work collaboratively

providing complex learning experiences

Constructivism is a tool.

As a learning theory, it lends

itself well to our work in integrating

Web 2.0 with IL.

Instructional strategies over techniques

Constructivism

Learning is social Knowledge is co-constructed

with others – teachers or peers.

Activity Design Working with the

Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky)

Beyond a student’s current independent skill level

Achievable with assistance or support

Level of assisted

performance

Level of independent performance

Zone of proximal

development

(Davidson & Davidson, 1994; Fetsco & McClure, 2005)

Discovery Learning

“…allows learners to discover important principles, relationships or concepts through their own experiences” (Fetsco & McClure 140)

A philosophy rather than a technique

Scaffolding: what the teacher does

“guided discovery”

* models the learning

* points out unexplored features * reduces

anxiety* keeps learners on track

Problem-Based Learning

Assessments and Example Activities

Examples:

• Teaching by Problems

• Teaching by Case studies & Role-Plays

• Teaching by Real-World Questions

Where applied: nursing/medical/law schools Role of the

Learner•active participant• collaborates with peers, teachers• some learning activities involve the learner as the ‘teacher’

Portfolio/project assessment[Hold a debate on

Wikipedia]

[Create an ‘ideal’ library layout map]

[Write a job description of the librarian of the future]

Teaching Examples

Name Activity

Cyberculture Class Blog Responding to/reflecting on research

APA Wiki Evaluating/correcting bibliographic citations

Evaluating Wikipedia Evaluating online information

flickr photo tagging Creating & Evaluating tags, Relating flickr to library subject

headings/index terms

del.icio.us bookmarking Classifying online information, Organizing URLs & research

Google Docs Collaborating on a writing project, differentiating

scholarly vs. non-scholarly information

facebook: Six degrees of separation

Relating online activity to researching/citation chasing

Activity-based lesson planning: Design active, guiding taskscreatepredic

t

analyzeevaluate

classify

relate

integrate

Teaching Example #1 Cyberculture blog

http://cybercultureclassnotes.blogspot.com/ Synthesizing main ideas to construct new

concepts (Standard 3.3)

Comparing ideas to determine the value added, contradictions, or other unique characteristics of the information (Standard 3.4)

Evaluating/determining whether certain ideas have an impact on an individual’s value system and taking steps to reconcile differences (Standard 3.5)

Teaching Example #2 APA Wiki

http://wilu2007.pbwiki.com/APA_Citation_wiki Selecting an appropriate documentation style

and using it consistently to cite sources. (Standard 5.3)

Teaching Example #3 Wikipedia evaluation wiki

http://wilu2007.pbwiki.com/evaluating_wikipedia

Collaborative writing activity Evaluating Wikipedia articles and article

sources for Bias, prejudice, manipulation Cultural or community context Reliability Validity Authority

Comparing information between different electronic sources (Standard 3.2)

Teaching Example #4 flickr tags

Activity: students sign into class-wide flickr account

Comparing/contrasting natural vocabulary with controlled vocabulary

c.f. Vygotsky’s block game Identifying keywords, synonyms and related

terms for the information needed Selecting controlled vocabulary specific to the

discipline or information retrieval source (using database thesauri)

(Standard 2.2)

Teaching Example #5 del.icio.us

Activity: student groups organize research information using del.icio.us (social bookmarking)

Group organizing of information for research Recognizing that knowledge can be organized

into disciplines that influence the way information is accessed

Categorizing knowledge through social tagging Identifying the value and differences of various

Web sites Identifying the purpose and audience of various

Web sites (e.g., popular vs. scholarly, current vs. historical)

(Standard 1.2)

Teaching Example #6Google Docs

Activity: Group writing project, article evaluation, using Google Docs

Collaborative writing Using Web as platform

Identifying scholarly vs. non-scholarly articles Reading articles and selecting main ideas Restates textual concepts in student’s own

words Analyzing the structure of articles

(Standards 3.1 & 3.2)

Teaching Example #7 facebook

Teaching activity still under construction Situating scholars as members of a community Researching through citation chasing: 6

degrees of separation (Brown cites Jones, who cites Williams, etc.)

Possibly tying this to Web of Science database (Cited Ref searching)

How to assess this?

Questions and Discussion

Conclusion

Special thank you to Dr. Heidi Julien Thanks as well to:

University of Lethbridge Office of Research Services University of Alberta School of Library and

Information Studies University of Alberta Faculty of Education University of Alberta Faculty of Graduate Studies

and Research Library Association of Alberta

Selected WorksWeb 2.0 & Teaching/InfoLit Achterman, D. (2006). Making connections with blogs and wikis. California School Library

Association Journal, 30(1), 29-31. Albanese, A.R. (2006). Google is not the Net: Social networks are surging and present the real

service challenge -- and opportunity -- for libraries. Library Journal, 131(15). Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6370224.html

Chase, D. (2007). Transformative sharing with instant messaging, wikis, interactive maps, and Flickr. Computers in Libraries, 27(1), 7-8, 52-56.

Farabough, R. (2007). ‘The Isle is Full of Noises:’ Using wiki software to establish a discourse community in a Shakespeare classroom. Language Awareness, 16(1), 41-56.

Hauser, J. (2007). Media specialists can learn Web 2.0 tools to make schools more cool. Computers in Libraries, 27(2), 6-8.

Huwe, T.K. (2006). Some best practices for personalizing outreach. Computers in Libraries, 26(2), 36-38.

Lewis, C., and Fabos, B. (2005). Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 470-501.

Maloney, E.J. (2007). What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(18), B26.

O’Reilly, T. (2005, September 30). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. O’Reilly Network. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news.2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

Payne, P. (2007). Rich internet applications: Enabling Web 2.0. Network Computing, 18(3), 72, 74-78. Ramsay, K.M., and Kinnie, J. (2006). The embedded librarian: getting out there via technology to

help students where they learn. Library Journal, 131(6), 34-35. Ray, J. (2006). Welcome to the blogosphere: The educational use of blogs (aka edublogs). Kappa

Delta Pi Record, 42(4), 175-177. Zhang, L. (2006). Effectively incorporating instructional media into web-based information literacy.

The Electronic Library, 24(3), 294-306.

Selected WorksConstructivism Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2006). Innovations in teacher education: A social constructivist approach.

Albany: SUNY.Excellent backgrounder on constructivist learning theory.

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M.G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Constructivist-based explorations of various classroom issues (e.g. making teaching relevant, valuing students’ points of view, etc.)

Brown, A., & Green, T. D. (2006). The essentials of instructional design: Connecting fundamental principles with process and practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Easily accessible writings on learning theory, task analysis, creating learning environments and learner assessment.

Davidson, F. (Producer), & Davidson, J. (Director). (1994). Vygotsky’s development theory: An introduction. [Videotape]. Woodstock, Ont.: Canadian Learning Company.Excellent introductory video on constructivism from a Vygotskyian perspective.

Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Practical tips for organizing a constructivist classroom.

Fetsco, T., & McClure, J. (2005). Educational psychology: An integrated approach to classroom decisions. Boston: Pearson.Comprehensive educational psychology textbook with well-written descriptions of constructivist ideas, and related learning theories and strategies (e.g. inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning, discovery learning).

Marlowe, B.A., & Page, M.L. (1998). Creating and sustaining the constructivist classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Brief history of constructivism and interesting reading on “active learning” in the classroom.

Notess, G.R. (2006). Teaching web search skills: Techniques and strategies of top trainers. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.Weaving Web design concepts with instructional suggestions. Good resource for help with online tutorials.

Selected Works Discourse Analysis Budd, J.M. (2006). Discourse analysis and the study of communications in LIS. Library Trends, 55(1),

65-82.A readable and expansive exploration of the two main schools of discourse analysis and their potential as tools within LIS and library practice.

Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. A.M.S. Smith trans. New York: Pantheon.A landmark in the history of discourse analysis. A somewhat inscrutable read.

Macdonell, D. (1986). Theories of discourse: An introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Solid introduction (and discourse) of discourse analysis.

thank you

cameron.hoffman@uleth.casarah.polkinghorne@ualberta.net