View
737
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presented by Samantha Abrahams and Hannah Wood at the Centre for Information Literacy Research seminar on 6th August 2009
Citation preview
INF6014: Information Literacy ResearchSamantha Abrahams
Hannah WoodAugust 2009
Introduction to the project Methodology Discussion of Results:◦ Relationship with CILASS◦ Representation of the SCONUL 7 pillars◦ Understanding of the concept of information
literacy Conclusion
CILASS interested in assessing the impact of their input upon the DLTAS.
University of Sheffield strategy document: ‘Sharing our Learning Teaching and Assessment Future: Our Shared Vision’ (University of Sheffield: 2007)
Objective 5: The university will enable students to “access high quality learning and information resources in a variety of formats and become information literate by seeking out, evaluating and engaging with a wide range of information resources, effectively and ethically in support of their critical engagement with their discipline.” (University of Sheffield, 2007: 4)
Knowledge Creation ICT Skills
Communication Skills
Inquiry Based Learning
Definition: “a systematic analysis of the occurrence of words, phrases and concepts” (Powell, 1997: 50).
Some believe that documents can mean any one of a number of things, while other scholars refute this and believe that content analysis is basically founded upon common sense. (Bell, 2005: 133)
‘Information Literacy Thesaurus’ (Coleson and Furnival, 2009) used to code the strategies◦ Increased validity as created using library and
information literature◦ Increased reliability as standardised terms used to
code the strategies Judgement of the 2 researchers◦ Reduced reliability as each researcher had to judge
context of each term in relation to IL◦ BUT researchers came together a number of times
to discuss findings and increase reliability
Purposive sample Content analysis carried out manually finding:◦ the number of occurrences of each term◦ whether the term written in the context of
information literacy◦ which of the 7 pillars if any they met◦ how the departments had embedded these into
their modules◦ the relationship of each department with CILASS
Overall IBL well represented Faculty of Science see IBL more in the context
of specific projects Not always a clear division between
departments with extensive contact and those with little contact with CILASS
Perhaps representation of IBL shaped more by discipline than involvement with CILASS
Pillars 1-4 relatively unrepresented Majority of IL competences relate to pillars 5-
7 Some skills related to the 7 pillars are faculty
specific Ethical use of information frequently
discussed www.sconul.ac.uk
IL competencies often mentioned in the context of discipline or generic skills
Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health –higher level skills viewed as core competencies of health professionals; IL skills understood more in terms of lower level skills
‘Research’ dominates many of the strategies and often spoken about in terms we would relate to IL
IL specifically discussed overwhelmingly in the context of institutional objective 5
How do departments address this objective?◦ Many state that these skills embedded within
modules without expanding◦ Others state will fulfil this by liaising with the
library or CILASS Is this because of the imprecise definition of
IL provided or because little importance is placed on these skills?
In a few instances departments discuss IL outside of institutional objective 5
Others discuss IL in the context of IBL showing a deeper understanding
Most departments aware of IBL and mention their wish to engage with it
Departments with greater contact with CILASS tend to consider embedding IL in greater depth
Majority of DLTAS statements contain a range of IL competencies but more weight given to Pillars 5-7
HOWEVER these skills often not explicitly related to IL by strategy authors
IL discussed mainly in the context of institutional objective 5
Some departments discuss beyond this and identify a wider range of skills
A great deal of standardisation between departments in the way they express their understanding of IL, however discipline specific differences arise for example in the nature of information described
Thank youAny Questions?